First Comparison of MS Terminal Services 2008 and Citrix XenApps

This is the first published comparison of Microsoft Terminal Services 2008 with Citrix Xen Apps. Have also added to the bottom of the post, the conclusion of a white paper about the Microsoft in house implementation of Terminal Services 2008. The white paper in its entirety may be viewed by clicking the linked white paper title.

Rolling Review: Citrix XenApp Vs. Windows 2008 Terminal Services

The first pit stop in our Windows 2008 Server Rolling Review finds Microsoft walking a fine line on presentation virtualization.

By Randy George
InformationWeek
March 22, 2008 12:01 AM (From the March 24, 2008 issue)

Windows Server 2008's eagerly awaited Terminal Services is a respectable presentation virtualization alternative for smaller shops, but for large enterprises,Citrix Systems (NSDQ: CTXS) still reigns supreme. That's the--not unexpected--finding of the first installment in our ongoing Windows Server 2008 Rolling Review. From a product-positioning perspective,Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) is walking a fine line, responding to calls for more core Terminal Services functionality in Windows Server, yet keeping its hands mostly off the large enterprises that comprise Citrix's core audience.

While we found many enhancements in Windows 2008 Terminal Services, including better session and print driver management, load balancing, and single sign-on, there are three major functionality additions that companies weighing the choice of Microsoft's versus Citrix's presentation virtualization must consider: Terminal Services RemoteApp, Gateway, and Web Access.

In the past, Microsoft has gotten beat up pretty regularly for the dearth of enterprise-level thin-client functionality in Terminal Services 2003, especially when compared with Citrix's offerings. From a strict functionality standpoint, the criticism was warranted. But functionality doesn't tell the whole story. For every Citrix XenApp (formerly Presentation Server) license sold, Microsoft requires purchase of not only a desktop client access license (CAL), but also a Terminal Services CAL.

In addition, Citrix is one of just a handful of companies with access to the Windows Server OS source code. Microsoft is making millions on CAL licensing no matter which direction Windows shops choose to go, and given that, there's little motivation to go after Citrix in head-to-head competition.

The company's official stance: "Microsoft and Citrix continue to be strong partners; this perception [of competition] arises with each new release of Windows Server/Terminal Services," says Alex Balcanquall, Terminal Services product manager. "Together, over the years, we have continued to deliver great joint solutions to our mutual customers. Windows Server 2008 Terminal Services is about reaching out to net new customers, those that aren't using presentation virtualization today.

PUT TO THE TEST

We built a test bed that would reflect a small organization within our Boston Real-World Partner Labs, deploying a single dual-processor Hewlett-Packard DL 360 server with 4 GB of RAM to act as our core presentation server. Installation of Terminal Services was a snap; it can be added as simply another server role in a full OS installation or Server Core build. We tested Terminal Services RemoteApp by deploying a virtualized version of Microsoft Outlook to a user with a huge Exchange mailbox. Our client was a Windows XP SP2 box.

One thing we love about Terminal Services compared with Citrix XenApp is Microsoft's method for placing an application desktop shortcut. In XenApp, IT must first deploy the full desktop client, run Citrix Neighborhood, and create a connection to the application; only then can the desktop shortcut be created. In Terminal Services 2008, a RemoteApp wizard guided us through the process of publishing our application.

After selecting the app, we were instructed to create an MSI or EXE file, which can be deployed to many clients simultaneously. RemoteApp silently installed all the supporting files and shortcuts needed. However, when we tried to run our application for the first time on our Windows XP SP2 box, we ran into our first caveat emptor moment: You need to install RDP 6.1 before having employees attempt to connect to a Terminal Services 2008 server. If you're a Vista shop, of course, you're all set.

After getting the RDP issue resolved, we ran into an annoying caveat emptor No. 2 in the area of pass-through authentication. In Citrix XenApp, single sign-on just works. It works in Terminal Services 2008, too ... if you have Vista deployed. See a pattern here?

Still, despite the need to manually log on to our terminal session, performance compared quite well with a similar Citrix session, all system and network latency conditions being equal.

We then shifted gears to WebAccess, which was again very easy to configure. One feature of WebAccess we liked is its ability to provide a means to remotely link to any server in the network that can accept a remote desktop session. While this feature may be of limited value for end users, it's certainly helpful for admins who want to perform server maintenance from a variety of PCs. However, there are a couple of gotchas.

First, you will, again, need to have RDP 6.1 installed before transporting yourself to a remote system, so don't count on troubleshooting end users from PCs that aren't running Vista or XP SP3. The other, more significant, drawback is the inability to customize applications by user or group security--you either present an application through WebAccess, or you don't. This is a major distinguishing factor between Terminal Services and Citrix's Web services, and we can only surmise that leaving out customization was a strategically placed point of demarcation by Microsoft. Out of the box, Citrix XenApp provides a very simple methodology for customizing applications presented to users.

Finally, we set our sights on Terminal Services Gateway, which is essentially an SSL VPN that enables organizations to securely serve corporate applications over the public Internet. Configuration was somewhat cumbersome, and again you'll need RDP 6.1 to make Gateway work. But once the service was fully configured, we were impressed with how well it performed. There's no doubt that Citrix provides a more scalable and mature SSL service for presentation virtualization, but you'll need to shell out some extra bucks for a Citrix Access Gateway license to get that functionality. In contrast, Gateway is packaged into the core Terminal Services offering.

For small to midsize enterprises with simple presentation virtualization needs, Terminal Services will definitely fill the bill. But organizations that must scale to thousands of users will need the compression, acceleration, load balancing, and management options that only XenApp provides. According to Citrix, a new version of XenApp that will build on improvements within Terminal Services 2008 will be released later this year.

How MSIT Uses Terminal Services as a Scalable Remote Access Solution
Deploying Windows Server 2008 Terminal Services at Microsoft
Technical White Paper

Published: February 27, 2008

Conclusion

The Terminal Services deployment team intended the Terminal Services deployment to act as a test environment to determine the overall scalability and stability of Windows Server 2008 Terminal Services in a large enterprise. Additionally, the team intended this worldwide deployment to generate feedback with regard to features and functionality to include in the Terminal Services program.

The TS Gateway concept proved to be a popular and scalable remote access solution, enabling users to access the corporate network at Microsoft from virtually any location worldwide. Personnel could use this feature to access important files and resources at Microsoft from locations from which they were unable to do so previously. Additionally, the speed of connecting to resources on the internal network improved to such an extent that users preferred the TS Gateway farm over that of the typical remote access VPN connection.

By using fast and easy-to-access terminal server farms, the team was able to achieve a goal of increasing the security of sensitive internal resources such as internal documents and worksheets.

Although this pilot project was deployed as a test environment, the deployment was so successful, and the user response was so positive, that the Terminal Services pilot did not end. Instead, the whole environment was integrated into the production environment at Microsoft IT. This change means that the worldwide Windows Server 2008 Terminal Services deployment is now handled in the same manner as a typical production environment at Microsoft.

Until the next post,

Steve

Mobile Thin Clients and UMPCs or are they Very Small Laptops

It is being reported that ASUS Computer sold about 350,000 EEE laptops in the fourth quarter of 2007.

Click here for ASUS update prediction as of 13 March 2008. Try 3.8 million Eee PCs.

Since then Everex has entered the market with “Cloudbook”, and HCL with “MiLeap”. NorhTec annonuced it will enter the market next month. These devices are minimalist devices designed to access the Internet and provide some local execution of applications. They fall between small a laptop and hand held computer. Not sure if they meet the criteria for UMPC. Some will argue that they are too big. This may be a new class of devices. Maybe just a Very Mobile Laptop that is too small for some and too big for UMPC devotees.

Pictured right is the HCL MiLeap.

Under 1 kg, with a 7” screen and keyboards that you can use with more than 2 fingers, they are the right size for me. Battery life starting at 3 hours and going up to eight hours is more than enough for most users.

But I like the ability to load in RDesktop or RDP and connect to terminal services. Managed TS on Server 2003 using a cell phone. At best it worked, but barely. The screen had to be divided into 5 windows. Not friendly at all. With a resolution of 800 x 480 on these devices the situation improves.

Pictured left is Everex CloudBook.


Pictured to the right is ASUS EEE.

But that is not the subject of this post. It is Laptop Thin Clients. Big Screens and no storage on inside. Must connect to a server to provide functionally. That is the whole purpose of this type of device.

Pictured left is the NorhTec "Gecko".

Below is an article about mobile thin clients. I think there is much room for both Thin Client laptops and the less than 1 kg convergence small laptop or UMPC. In fact, there may be more choices in this space in the very near future. Choice is good.


From Techworld:

January 28, 08
Will we really use mobile thin clients?
Work on the move, but keep the data in the office?

By Peter Judge, Techworld:

When yet another laptop goes missing, along with a ton of sensitive data, IT managers might wonder if there's any way to keep that data off the laptop in the first place. Could that need be pressing enough to make the idea of mobile thin clients work?

On the face of it, the idea of a mobile thin client is bizarre. Imagine a laptop you can't use without a connection back to your office. You wouldn't be able to work on the plane, and you’d lose your connection when your train went into a tunnel!

But the idea has had several incarnations, and shows no sign of going away. HP, who launched a laptop thin client this week, says there are reasons why the time may have finally arrived for laptops that don't work on their own.
Who's tried it?

Thin clients as a while haven't been very visible, but they have been gaining ground. On desktops, they have been taking the place of old-style dumb terminals; like them, they are plugged in and work unnoticed, displaying work that is effectively carried out on remote servers.

As workers become more mobile, it makes sense that some sort of mobile thin client could be useful. Especially as people are carrying around large quantities of sensitive data on laptops - and when those laptops are stolen, so is the data.

HP's 6720t (pictured left) isn't the first mobile thin client. It comes from HP's recent acquisition Neoware, which had itself launched one, two years ago. Wyse, the undisputed leader in thin clients till the HP-Neoware merger, launched one in 2007.

In May 2007, the concept nearly got a boost from a well-known name in mobile computing. Palm announced the Foleo - a thin client of sorts, but more accurately a client-of-a-client, that would act as a big keyboard and screen for a smartphone.

The Foleo was delayed, and then finally canned in September. Palm decided it simply couldn't sell the concept to its consumer customers, especially as the cost would be similar to that of a "full" laptop.

HP thinks it's not going to sidestep the same problem, for two reasons. Firstly, this laptop is going to be much more like a "real" laptop, apart from the local storage. It will use the same accessories, port-replicators batteries and optical drives as HP's normal laptops. "There's no trade-off from the customer point of view," says Andrew Gee, sales manager for HP remote client solutions.

It also runs a familiar-looking Embedded XP - which Gee is pleased to report - comes from a different part of Microsoft to the division that will be axing the regular Windows XP later this year.

Secondly, it's not going to be used by people who would normally get a laptop. "It enables businesses to deliver IT to users who historically haven't had it," says Gee, who suggests thin clients might be used by staff on the road in VANs, giving them the ability to update office systems more effectively than using a handheld terminal.
Practical issues

Alongside these issues, two practical points may come to the aid of the mobile thin client. Firstly, the price is better than one might have feared. The first wave of wired thin clients, in the 1990s, was scuppered because they were promoted on the basis of saving money over expensive PCs - but then turned out to be more expensive than those PCs.

This time round, all thin clients are sold on the basis of lifetime costs, so even though the client may not be vastly cheaper than a PC, it will save money be outliving any PC, since no hardware upgrades will be required. "It's about total cost of ownership," says Gee. "If you're going out there trying to reduce acquisition cost, that's not the right way to go about it. This has no moving parts, memory and flash disk is upgradeable. It's a piece of glass."

This sort of emphasis on lifecycle costs is usually a preamble for a high purchase price - but the HP laptop thin client turns out to be reasonably priced - with an entry price of $725 - and the one we found online costs $837.89.

Secondly, connections are much easier than they used to be, so mobile working on a thin client is more practical, says Gee. The 6720t includes both Wi-Fi and an Ethernet socket, as well as a card slot for a 3G modem. Some of Gee's Neoware/HP colleagues have already worked a full day on a 6720t, using 3G and GPRS while travelling from Manchester to London on the train, then working in offices, plugging in a spare battery and working on the way back.

"If we had tried to launch mobile thin clients three or four years ago, it would have been difficult for the market to accept," says Gee. "Now, network connnectivity is more prevalent and becoming cheaper. If you are using an efficient server-based protocol, even GPRS is quick enough for email and diary."

The bigger picture

Behind all this, there is a possibility that we are all moving towards a more thin-client mentality. People are using Google and Hotmail in order to be able to work on any terminal, and the mobile versions of services like Google mail bring thin client working into the mobile world. On some handsets, mobile Google mail is a really usable thin computing service, where messages are
manipulated remotely.

Craig Mathias has suggested that phones could be mobile thin clients.

Pictured right is the DevonIT Safebook.

However, on laptops, the concept may need tweaking to match the reality. "It's a matter of thin client computing, not a thin client computer - as always," says analyst Clive Longbottom of QuoCirca. "Yes, too much information is being held locally on clients, but some of this is necessary. The key is that some of it is necessary, not all of it - and yet the user carries it all around 'just in case'."

Longbottom suggests that a really useful mobile thin client would sort data out into two kinds: "Use thin client computing to give access to the information that is only touched once in a while, use the device to store - encrypted and digitally controlled for lifecycle - that information that is required on a more continuous basis."

That will take a bit of thought - but the idea is simple, and maybe IT managers at places like the MoD could give it some thought.

Until the next post,

Steve

FREE Computer-as-a-Service

Yes!!! FREE!!! Get a little advertising in an ad box on the right side of the presentation and pay only 9.95 USD for shipping.

Everyone knew that someday computers would be free. We just did not know what day. Got a press release in the email advising me today is the day to get a free computer. The computer is in the cloud and that is good for me. Ordered one and will let you know about my experience with Screen PC and Nimbus Cloud Computing.

Norwalk, CT (PRWEB) March 6, 2008 -- Experienced entrepreneurs Vern Kennedy, John Crowley and Vijay Das created ScreenPC, Inc. to tackle the problem of costs and complexity in home computers. ScreenPC, Inc., funded by Columbia Ventures Corporation, today launches its nimbus cloud computer as a monthly subscription service with both paid and free versions.

Mr. Kennedy left Broadview Networks in 2005, a company he founded in 1996 as the first local telephone competitor in New York City and built up to $200-plus million in revenue at the time of his departure. During his tenure at Broadview Networks, Vern served as President, CEO and Chairman of the Board.

Forced to field a few calls a day from frustrated friends who needed help with their computers, Vern wondered if there was a better way. An electrical engineer from Princeton, Vern immediately began to tinker with an idea for a new way to look at how computers are delivered to home users. "If the costly and complicated parts of a computer could be hosted in a central data center that was managed by experts and only a screen was delivered to a home user, then things would be a lot simpler and less expensive for everyone involved. I wanted to make this happen."

There was an immediate challenge. No cost-effective device existed to drive the screen at the home. Existing thin clients would have been a likely starting point but were still far too expensive. "We had to build our own from scratch. Most thin clients are really just an ordinary PC with components removed. Our ultra-thin client was designed from the ground up to focus just on screen and USB management."

Vern assembled a team to tackle the technical and business challenges ahead in creating a new home computer. He enlisted Dr. John Crowley, who had designed the highly regarded back office system at Broadview Networks, to be the Chief Technology Officer. He contacted Vijay Das, who had been responsible for the design and commercialization of new products at Broadview Networks, to be the Chief Marketing Officer.

Dr. Crowley is very pleased with today's launch. "Its been quite an adventure in rethinking and redesigning just about every aspect of the computer and it's great to have the service out today. As someone who has been involved in personal computers for over 25 years as I have, it's amazing how radical a development this company is. We've completely changed the hardware and software of home computing."

Vijay Das thinks that consumers will appreciate the options that a truly affordable computer make possible. New users need not be afraid of the cost or complexity. And if a home already has one or more computers, the nimbus cloud computer is a way you can add a few more in convenient locations. "The nimbus cloud computer represents a complete re-imagination of what home computing can be. But today is just the beginning. We will be announcing new services that we will deliver through the nimbus cloud computer platform are truly unique. Stay tuned!"

The nimbus cloud computer service is available today on the web: www.nimbuscc.com.

Vijay Das

ScreenPC, Inc.
203-842-0460 604

Of course there is the fine print. From the Nimbus website i have included theirs.

Looking for small print!?

You've come to the right place! Its no big deal really but feel free to dig in. Full Terms of Service apply. You will need a broadband connection of at least 768 kbps through dsl, cable or fiber. Service is month-to-month. You may cancel your service with us at any time. Monitor not included. Just about any VGA monitor you have will work with the nimbus. If you don't have one, we can get one real cheap for you so check what we have when you place order. Not all USB devices supported. We maintain a list of USB devices and monitors on our supported hardware page. The nimbus device is yours to use for as long as you are a customer and you will not be charged separately for it. But, these little puppies cost us real cash to make. If you cancel your service and you don’t want to return it, thats fine, just pay us $50 and its yours (thats why we put a $50 hold on your credit card). If you are a free customer and you end up not using the device, then we will ask you to return it as well. There are lots of folks waiting in line and we want our nimbus to go to folks who will use it. Free customers, you will have an Ad Panel.

Until the next post,

Steve

Shaklee Cleans Up with SAAS

The eWeek.com article by Debra Donston is one of the best SAAS articles i have read. The article covers many of the topics that decision makers must evaluate before moving to SAAS. Writers are going to be writing books about how far and how fast the pendulum swings back to one of the new Server Based Computing solutions.

With more choices for IT managers it is now how much of which solution is right for them to achieve their organization's objectives. SAAS is just one of many options in the IT payoff matrix.

Click here to go to the Debra's eWeek.com article or continue to read below.

Shaklee Cleans Up with SAAS
By Debra Donston
2008-03-02

Shaklee looks to the cloud to effectively align IT with business requirements.

Shaklee was green before green was cool. Now the company is applying that forward-thinking philosophy to SAAS.

Shaklee, based in Pleasanton, Calif., has been around for more than 50 years. What started with a vitamin formulation developed by Dr. Forrest Shaklee has evolved into a broad spectrum of all-natural cleaning, nutritional and skin-care products that have recently won accolades from no less than Oprah Winfrey and nods in Time, Woman’s Day and In Style, among many other magazines.

This is something of a resurgence for the company, which was taken private almost four years ago by Roger Barnett (now the company’s chairman and CEO) and private equity organizations. In 1982, Shaklee was a Fortune 500 company, but between then and 2004, when the company was acquired, Shaklee had been shrinking, according to the company’s CIO, Ken Harris.

Shaklee’s new owners brought in a management team to turn the company around, including Harris, who was formerly CIO of companies such as Gap, Nike and PepsiCo.

One key objective for the company’s new management was to make Shaklee relevant to a new generation of consumers, as well as to a new generation of independent sales representatives—the major channel through which Shaklee products are sold.

“When the new management came on, they really were looking to turn the company around in a number of different ways,” Harris said. “I would say one of the most important things was to appeal to a younger demographic—to reach out to a younger demographic—in addition to the demo they had, which is an older generation. What we were looking to do was make sure that the current generation was joining on as reps as well as our existing reps. That meant, frankly, investing in a lot of new technologies.”

The challenge was that Shaklee had under-invested for a number of years in its infrastructure. “Most of the systems were COBOL- or mainframe-based or client/server technologies coming out of the ’80s,” Harris said. “The technology here was very, very dated.”

In addition, Shaklee is significantly smaller than other companies Harris has worked for. This meant Harris’ budget was relatively smaller, but the breadth of applications he needed to implement wasn’t.

“[At Shaklee,] we had the basic ERP [enterprise resource planning], finance systems, supply chain systems and HR [human resources] systems that we needed to support,” he said. “We had a very active Web community that we needed to support. We had e-commerce. We had the full expanse. We didn’t have maybe the same number of transactions, but the same kind of breadth.”

Harris needed to set some priorities and find a way to be more efficient in his spend of IT tech dollars.

The first thing he did was build a map of the company, aligning business activities with the technologies underlying them.

“I created a picture of the business, using English words or business terms—not a lot of tech-speak,” Harris said. “I used it to talk with the businesspeople about the key things we do to run this business. And then I mapped the techs we have that supported these business activities and color-coded them red, yellow or green for the state, or the condition, of the technologies.”

Anything that was red, for example, had a higher priority than any technologies that were green.

This document gave Shaklee’s IT department a good understanding of the business and its priorities, and it communicated to the business side in a clear manner what the state of each technology was.

“[The document] enabled us then to put forth a road map for the rest of the business—where we needed to make investments, how and when,” Harris said. “It was kind of that process that we used to get alignment.”

At the same time, Harris came up with a number of technology architecture principles. One of them was that, wherever possible, the company would leverage new technologies that enabled faster time to market, a reduction in the amount of infrastructure that needed to be built and maintained, and a reduction in costs.

Fortuitously, Harris said, at the same time, software-as-a-service technologies and the SAAS marketplace were starting to take off.

Harris had worked with SAAS applications, including Salesforce.com, before he came to Shaklee. He was hopeful that leveraging the SAAS model would help him update aging applications quickly and relatively inexpensively.

“We had our map of the entire business spectrum, and what we said was that every application that we need to look at replacing, we’re going to try to replace with a SAAS-based solution, including strategic applications,” Harris said. “We look at all the potential apps, but it’s usually the case that a SAAS vendor can deliver faster, cheaper and better than a traditional vendor.”

The SAAS model is gaining steam. In a July 2007 survey conducted by eWeek sister publication CIO Insight, 27 percent of respondents said their companies’ IT architectures were fundamentally based on SAAS, while 73 percent said they planned to expand their use of SAAS applications.

While Harris and his team were aware of SAAS’ benefits, they were not without initial trepidation.

“I clearly had a number of concerns, and my business partners had additional concerns—or the same concerns more intensely,” Harris said. “In my experience, the economics of SAAS are better than the economics of buying technology, implementing it yourself, hosting it yourself, etc., but you can’t just walk willy-nilly into SAAS and expect that it’s going to work, because it won’t.”

Service levels and security were two major concerns, he said.

“If I have some other company running key technologies of mine, if there’s a problem in the middle of the night, are they going to respond to it the same way we would? … What if they have access to all my data? Or, if my data is on their systems, what if somebody else accesses it? Does it expand the data risk, the security risk?”

Other concerns included business viability and integration.

“What if they go out of business tomorrow? What if they start running into economic problems and they shortchange their service as a result? … How easy is it going to be to get third parties to integrate all of our systems?”

In the end, Harris determined that three of those four main concerns—service levels, business viability and integration—could be taken care of with good contractual arrangements. The fourth—security—could be resolved through technology, such as encryption. Harris added that any vendor must demonstrate that its offerings can enable Shaklee to adhere to PCI (Payment Card Industry) and other regulations, further ensuring that security standards are being met.

That said, Shaklee initially took SAAS baby steps: “When we elected to go with software as a service, we said, ‘We’re not going to jump in the water; we’re going to put our toe in first and make sure the water’s not freezing cold.’”

Shaklee’s first SAAS venture was a simple address verification application from StrikeIron. The application was brought in to help Shaklee clean up the addresses in its database and was also intended as a SAAS proof of concept.

“We have over 750,000 members—people who buy our products, and we ship a lot of products,” Harris said. “We had a number of addresses in our database that were just, frankly, wrong, so things got shipped to the wrong places. So we implemented an address verification module for one of the things that we were doing, across all the systems that were collecting addresses.”

Harris said it took about 60 days—and very little cost—to implement the StrikeIron service.

That SAAS success led to relationships with two other SAAS vendors: RightNow and Visual Sciences.

Shaklee is using RightNow’s technology for all its customer interface applications, mass-mail marketing, call centers, telephone order entry and Web knowledge content capabilities. “Basically, the front-end picture to our customers,” Harris said.

The company is using the Visual Sciences service, now owned by Omniture, for all its Web analytics, Web search and, most recently, Web marketing presentations. “It’s a fully hosted service, so when you do Web search, you end up getting a page that looks just like Shaklee’s Web site; it just happens not to be Shaklee’s technology,” Harris said.

Shaklee then waded more deeply into the SAAS pool by betting its data on the model.

“At the core of any business map, in my opinion, is the data—the database and the data warehouse—because all the apps end up using and sharing the data,” said Harris.

Shaklee implemented a fully hosted data warehouse solution from PivotLink, so “at core, our architecture and infrastructure are on a SAAS platform,” he said.

It took less than 120 days to implement the PivotLink application, for “low six figures,” Harris said. On-premises data warehouses he’s implemented in the past have each taken up to two years—with seven-figure price tags—to implement. “[With PivotLink,] we didn’t have to buy any hardware; we didn’t have to buy any software. We had to negotiate certainly service levels, but we didn’t have to build up the expertise and the technology,” he said.

Shaklee is also using the Lenos Software on-demand solution for event and convention management, and Virtela’s management service for Shaklee’s global network. (“They not only provide the network, but they also manage it, down to the router,” Harris said.)

As for future projects in the cloud, Shaklee is evaluating the Workday service for its HR and payroll activities.

HR and CRM (customer relationship management) topped the list of enterprise applications licensed in the SAAS model, according to the CIO Insight research, with 36 percent of respondents saying they were using a hosted CRM solution and 36 percent saying they were using a hosted HR solution. Billing/
accounts payable, collaboration and e-commerce were next on the list, with 24, 22 and 21 percent of respondents, respectively, saying they were using such hosted solutions.

Different role for IT

Harris said SAAS really changes the job of IT.

For one thing, the model places a greater burden on getting vendor contracts right—having the right relationship and managing the relationship on an ongoing basis, he said.

“You go back to your businesspeople and say, ‘What are the requirements for a service-level agreement?’ You don’t always do that internally,” Harris said. “You put into the contract detailed service-level specs, and you put around them incentives and consequences. Usually the metrics need to be uptime, response time, severity Level 1 problem resolution and disaster recovery time.”

In addition, working with a SAAS provider shifts the burden of integration.

“If you work the relationship so that you don’t pay until you’re using the service, now the SAAS provider has an equal share—if not a greater share—in making sure that software gets up and running and works,” Harris said. “They don’t get any money until it does, and that means they have to be involved in solving the integration problem.”

Harris added that it’s important to build an exit strategy into the contract if the relationship with a vendor does not work out or if the vendor folds.

“We’ve had a couple of arrangements that didn’t work out as intended, so, as part of our negotiation process, we negotiate some kind of out in case it doesn’t work,” he said. “With one of our SAAS relationships, we negotiated the out to take over the technology and run it internally. And, in that particular situation, we ended up doing that.”

As with any vendor, Harris said, it’s important to conduct reference checks before beginning a relationship with a SAAS provider.

He added that not all vendors that have SAAS offerings can be good SAAS vendors.

“It’s not just about having a solution that can be applied or delivered over the Web; it also requires a major change in culture from what tech providers have done in the past,” he said. “To be a good SAAS vendor, you have to have a model that says, ‘I never walk away from my customers. I have to provide a service, and I have to provide a standard of performance.’ Not all companies understand that because it hasn’t been in their genetic makeup.”

Green benefits

So, with Shaklee’s heritage—including the distinction of being the first company in the world to totally offset its CO2 emissions and be certified as Climate Neutral—were SAAS’ power-
saving advantages any factor in the move to the cloud model?

In a way.

“It’s interesting,” Harris said. “Our first product, in the 1950s, was the first totally natural cleaning product, and all of our products since then have been all-natural. We didn’t go to SAAS because of green—I wish I could tell you otherwise—it only turned out that SAAS is more green because I’m not using nearly as much energy. I’m leveraging the capability of aggregation, which definitely has a positive impact.

“It happens to coincide with our original direction and mission, but it’s coincidental, not causal. But that’s part of the reason it was easier to sell.”

Maybe in the next week or so we might here that Microsoft maybe moving into this space. Just maybe?

Until the next post,

Steve