2. Motivations for an Ariba Upgrade during Economic Uncertainty page 2
About this survey
In December 2008, Shelby set out to understand
the business justification supporting the need to
upgrade to Ariba 9r1 for customers maintaining
their Enterprise/CD version of the Ariba Spend
Management suite.
Most information available is focused on the new
functionality of Ariba 9r1 and centered on platform-
based features, including module improvements,
enhancements in the user interface, improved
configuration and administration, improved support
for ERP and Ariba On-Demand, new Web Service—
based integration and improved Ariba Supplier
Network connectivity.
Current Ariba customers, however, are finding
that they must weigh the benefits of these
features against the cost of upgrading given the
current economic conditions. With only a few 9r1
implementations to compare to, those contemplating
an upgrade have looked to organizations like Shelby
for guidance on upgrade strategy and planning.
In this regard, our efforts have been aimed at
providing greater insight into those areas that might
help establish the business justification for an Ariba
9r1 upgrade. Part of this effort has culminated in
identifying a way to capture common concerns
and described motivations with a wide range of
individuals in the broader Ariba user community.
Motivations for an Ariba Upgrade during
Economic Uncertainty
About The Shelby Group
The Shelby Group delivers Procurement Optimization services that help
companies align their procurement strategies, processes and technologies
to reduce costs, cycle times and risks throughout the procurement lifecycle.
Shelby has extensive experience in meeting the diverse needs of Fortune 500
clients, and possesses the deep understanding of procurement processes
and technologies required to reduce spend, ensure compliance and enhance
performance across the enterprise.
The Shelby team has in-depth experience in Ariba technology. For more than
a decade, we have interacted with the Ariba client community by providing
consulting services in spend strategy, implementation, technical upgrades, change
management and application support. During this time, Shelby has demonstrated
its leadership by having worked closely with Ariba to resolve various technical
issues on major releases, including the latest platform release, 9r1.
Because Shelby has been an active participant in the evolution of procurement
optimization, and Ariba technology in particular, our clients and partners
frequently invite us to share our key opinions and demonstrate our thought
leadership with the procurement community in a variety of forums, including
analyst paper sponsorships, industry conferences, keynote speaking
engagements and our own research publications.
3. Motivations for an Ariba Upgrade during Economic Uncertainty page 3
As an organization, we were also motivated to
understand insights into what current Ariba
customers are thinking and planning over the course
of the coming year in terms of their existing Ariba
deployments.
Capturing this information through a survey would
help in achieving our goal. Furthermore, survey
results from a diverse set of Ariba customers
would be meaningful in helping us provide
recommendations to our clients.1
Thus, our survey set out to gain these insights by
organizing questions around six key factors:
1. The role of the respondents
2. Current perceptions and upgrade impact
3. Influence of past upgrade experience
4. Considerations impacting the 9r1 upgrade
5. Alternatives to the 9r1 upgrade
6. Current timeline of survey participants
Most, if not all, of the questions in the survey were
derived from various interview sessions, upgrade
workshops and other private sessions hosted by
Shelby. Additionally, an independent group of
Ariba customers volunteered to review our survey
questions to ensure they reflected the true concerns
or issues weighing heavily on the minds of the
Ariba community based upon previous upgrade
experiences or their perceptions within their
corporate enterprises.
The role of the respondents
Those who participated in the survey
represented the following demographics:
• Survey participants
• 35 unique companies; 10 anonymous
• 118 surveys received; 75 completed
• Represented industries – Chemical,
Entertainment, Food & Beverage, Financial,
Government, Health Products, Higher Education,
Insurance, Media, Manufacturing, Oil & Gas,
Pharmaceutical, Retail, Telecommunications and
Transportation.
• Respondent roles – We asked survey
respondents to categorize their roles as Technical
Support, Procurement Manager, Director,
Procurement Support or Other. These titles have
been the most common roles that the Shelby
team has interacted with during the course of
Ariba-related projects and would be appropriate
for the survey.
Responses to the question of role are
demonstrated in Figure 1:
• A large percentage of respondents defined
their role as Technical Support (36%). This role
involves an individual responsible for performing
ongoing enhancements or who is involved with
maintenance, and/or issue resolution.
• The second largest respondent group defined
their role as Procurement Manager (20%). This
role would relate to an individual responsible for
the oversight of the day-to-day management of
procurement activities within the organization.
• The third largest respondent group defined their
role as Director Level (15%). This role involves
developing and executing global projects
and processes involved with services and
productivity savings for a company. In this case,
specifically IT or Procurement Management.
•Technical Support (Ongoing Enhancements,
Maintenance, Issue Resolution)
•Procurement Manager
•Director (Procurement, Sourcing, IT)
•Procurement Support (Catalog, Supplier Manager,
Order Manager)
•Other (Process Owner, Project Management)
Figure 1:
Breakdown of those contributing to the survey
36%
20%
15%
15%
14%
1 The idea of making informed decisions based on aggregating information is
addressed by James Surowiecki’s book The Wisdom of Crowds. For more
information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds
4. Motivations for an Ariba Upgrade during Economic Uncertainty page 4
• The remaining respondents represented
themselves in various other areas, including
Trainer, Release Management, Sourcing Agent,
Accounts Payable, Travel Manager and Project
Change Manager. We have referred to this group
collectively as Other.
Areas of influence—We believe that it was important
to also understand what influence the survey
respondents felt they had within the organization.
Based on Figure 2 (and with respect to the roles
defined in Figure 1), the majority of the survey
respondents stated they had the ability to influence
some form of technology decision as a Technology
Decision Maker (29%) or Technology Influencer
(25%). A grouping of the respondent population
stated that they that were either a Business
Influencer (35%) or Economic Decision Maker (8%).
Current perceptions and upgrade impact
Ariba’s history in spend management dates back to
the late 1990s and has, to a certain extent, defined
the spend management genre for Fortune 1000
companies looking to manage spend through
technology and services. As a consulting
organization intimately involved with Ariba
technology, we believe that Ariba Spend
Management continues to influence the spend
management software market. Furthermore, analysts
such as AMR, Forrester and Gartner, among others,
rate Ariba Spend Management as a top solution in
key areas such as Analytics, eSourcing, Contract
Management, eProcurement and eInvoice Payment
and Presentment.2
Effectiveness of Ariba in achieving spend management
In this regard, we felt understanding the perception
of Ariba’s effectiveness at improving spend
management and assessing the perceived impact
an upgrade may have on the current modules used
could provide us with insights into factors motivating
the upgrade to 9r1.
First, we set out to understand the effectiveness of
Ariba in achieving spend management initiatives.
Based on the results shown in Figure 3, the analysts’
opinion is supported by the survey where 52%
considered Ariba to be Effective and 12% Very
Effective in achieving spend management initiatives
within their organizations.
Though the survey supports most analysts’
conclusions concerning Ariba technology, the
2 Example of how Ariba currently rates in eSourcing is illustrated in the
latest Forrester Report - Duncan Jones. The Forrester Wave™: eSourcing,
Q1 2009. March 23, 2009, p. 8. Another example - http://www.
investorcalendar.com/includes/PRNPressRelease.asp?ID=1397946
•Business Influencer
•Technology Decision Maker
•Technology Influencer
•Economic Decision Maker
•Other
Figure 2: Primary role relative to the Ariba
applications within the organization
Figure 3: Effectiveness of Ariba in achieving
spend management initiatives
35%
29%
25%
8%
3%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Very
Effective
Effective Somewhat
Effective
Not
Effective
5. Motivations for an Ariba Upgrade during Economic Uncertainty page 5
responses may be counter to undertaking an
upgrade. If Ariba is considered effective in its current
state, an organization is less likely to spend money
and resources in a down economy to upgrade to
a new version with less perceived benefit. In other
words, don’t fix it if it isn’t broken.
Impact of an upgrade on current modules
This leads us to the next question, what is the impact
of an upgrade on current modules? As illustrated
in Figure 4 below, it is clear that the downstream3
platform (such as Buyer, eForms, Category
Procurement, Contract Compliance, etc.) areas are
perceived to have the greatest impact due to an
upgrade.
Based upon our survey responses, 18% of all
respondents felt the biggest impact of the upgrade
would be felt in Buyer, followed by eForms (14%) and
Contract Compliance (10%). We believe this makes
sense since the volume of transactions,
customizations (Ariba Metadata Language
extensions, Java code modifications, JavaScript
rules, etc.), and middleware integration requirements
on the downstream platform are typically more
extensive in downstream modules than in upstream
like Sourcing, Category Management and Analytics.4
Influence of past upgrade experience
Another major aspect of our survey was to
understand how past upgrade experience could
influence potential decisions regarding future plans
for 9r1. The three key areas we wanted to better
understand here were:
• Approach used in the last major upgrade
• Satisfaction level with the past major upgrade
• Approach to future upgrades
Approach used in the last major upgrade
The first aspect was to better understand the Ariba
upgrade experience and take a closer look at the
approach used for previous upgrades. We focused
on how resources were involved or allocated in the
project during the last major upgrade excluding
minor updates such as service pack enhancements.
3 Downstream are spend management processes in Ariba that define
the requisitioning process from the point of generating a requisition/
requesting an order to the point of invoicing and payment. A better term
may be procure-to-pay.
4 Upstream are spend management processes in Ariba that define spend
analytics, sourcing of suppliers such as RFx events, category project
management and contract authoring.
Figure 4: Ariba modules currently used that would be affected by the upgrade
20%
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
B
uyer
eForm
s
C
ontract C
om
pliance
A
nalysis/
D
ata
Enrichm
ent
Invoice
&
Paym
ent
Sourcing
C
ategory
M
anagem
ent
C
ontract W
orkbench
Travel &
Expense
C
ategory
Procurem
ent
SPM
6. Motivations for an Ariba Upgrade during Economic Uncertainty page 6
Approach to resources essentially comes down to
four options:
• Use of internal resources only
• Use of the Ariba Upgrade Lab
• Use of internal resources with outside consultants
• Other varied approaches (e.g., use of external
consultants only, off-shore)
The approach used may also have a direct impact on
the time frame and resources needed to complete
the upgrade. For instance, companies choosing
the Ariba Upgrade Lab would have a time lag in
the upgrade project between shipping an instance
off-site to be reviewed by the Ariba Technology
Solution Center and receiving the instance back
for testing. Whereas an organization working with
internal resources only or internal resources working
with outside consultants would not typically require
this time lag and may actually require less time to
complete the upgrade given the involvement of the
resources on-site during the course of the project.
As Illustrated in Figure 5, when asked about
the previous approach taken, the majority of
respondents stated Internal Resources and Outside
Consultants (36%), followed by Internal Resources
Only (28%), Never Done a Major Ariba Upgrade
(20%), Ariba Upgrade Lab (14%) and Other (2%).
Satisfaction level with the last major upgrade
The second aspect was satisfaction. Based on
the approach taken by the respondents,
Figure 6 illustrates the satisfaction level
with the last major upgrade.
Of those survey respondents having
experience with the last major upgrade,
we found the following results: Very
Satisfied (22%), Somewhat Satisfied
(28%), Neutral (8%), Somewhat
Dissatisfied (17%) and Very Dissatisfied
(5%).
Given the time lag between the last
major release in 8.x and 9r1, it would
make sense that a certain percentage of
the respondents may not have had the
experience or were not comforFigure in
assessing a satisfaction level.
Thus, 21% responded N/A in the survey, implying that
either version 8.x was the first version installed or
their involvement with Ariba within the organization
started after the upgrade had been completed.
Aspects to be improved in future upgrades
Another key area of consideration was what aspects
of the upgrade process could be improved in the
future 9r1 upgrade. Common issues based on
discussions with Ariba customers with previous
experiences included the following:
• Code deprecation/review
• System and end-user testing
• Transition to end users
• Data migration
• Business process mapping
• Technical documentation
• Project team selection
Based on the list above, Figure 7a and Figure 7b
provide the following results:
Looking at Figure 7a, the leading challenge noted
by close to 20% of respondents was in the area of
Review/Deprecation of existing customizations. This
result suggests that the majority of respondents
have seriously considered code review and code
deprecation as a key issue to be addressed in the
upgrade. This also validates the concern outlined
Figure 5: Approach used in the last major upgrade
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Internal
Resources
and Outside
Consultants
Internal
Resources
Only
Never
Done a
Major Ariba
Upgrade
Ariba
Upgrade
Lab
Other
7. Motivations for an Ariba Upgrade during Economic Uncertainty page 7
previously in Figure 4, where the majority of
respondents are likely to be running downstream
modules such as Buyer or eForms that may be heavily
customized.
The next major grouping of improvements included
Improved transition to end users (16%), Improved
system/user acceptance testing (15%), Process of data
migration (15%), More complete business process mapping
(13%) and Quality of technical documentation (12%).
These areas suggest the 9r1 project upgrade team
will need to increase the coordination between the
business, technical teams and internal application
support, especially when using external resources
such as the Ariba Lab or outside consultants.
Better selection of project team, which came in at
7% did not seem to be as large a concern, however,
given the newness of the platform, resources with this
experience may still be a challenge to find regardless of
approach.
This was followed by Other at 3%, which included
improvements of external consultants to proactively
manage the effort and better communication in
how new features would improve current processes
(essentially change management).
In Figure 7b, the approach used in the past is
compared to aspects that need to be improved.
Here are some of the following observations and
suggested reasons for the outcome:
• Review/Deprecation of existing code was the
most common issue of concern for all three
approaches demonstrating the importance of
this issue despite the chosen approach.
Figure 6: Satisfaction with the last major upgrade
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Very Satisfied Somewhat
Satisfied
Neutral Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Very
Dissatisfied
N/A
Figure 7a: Aspects to be improved in 9r1 upgrade
Other
Review/deprecation of existing customizations
Improved transition to end users
Improved user acceptance / system testing
Process of data migration
More complete business process mapping
Quality of technical documentation
Better selection of project team
0 5 10 15 20 25
8. Motivations for an Ariba Upgrade during Economic Uncertainty page 8
Suggested Reason: Most respondents are using
downstream modules that are somewhat too
heavily customized.
• Improved UA & system testing and Quality of
technical documentation was more commonly
noted when using the Ariba Upgrade Lab.
Suggested Reason: In terms of testing, the
upgrade lab process is done remotely and may
be disconnected from the user-based testing;
in terms of technical documentation, this result
may be due to time and budget constraints for
completing deliverables.
• Improved Transition to End Users/Training was more
of a common issue for Internal Resources Only.
Suggested Reason: Training
and change management are
often the last aspect of a major
implementation to be considered.
This combined with the unknowns
of the new platform can create a
challenging environment for an
upgrade.
• Quality of Technical Documentation
was more of a common issue
when using Internal & Outside
Consultants.
Suggested Reason: This result
may be due to time and budget
constraints for completing
deliverables.
Planned approach for future upgrade
Given the previous upgrade experience described,
the survey then looked to what a future approach
might look like.
The results shown in Figure 8 illustrate the current
plan being considered for respondents pursuing
a 9r1 upgrade: Internal Resources and Outside
Consultants (48%), Internal Resources Only (19%)
and Ariba Upgrade Lab (14%).
Interestingly, the remainder representing Other
(19%) showed an increased and wider variation of
responses that included Still determining options,
RFx - bidding the work out, Internal Resources and
Ariba Consultants and External Resources only.
Approach in the Past What aspects would be improved based on this experience
Internal Resources 1. Review/Depreciation of Existing Code
2. Improved Transition to End Users/Training
Ariba Upgrade Lab 1. Review/Depreciation of Existing Code
2. Improved UA & System Testing, Quality of Technical Documentation
Internal & Outside
Consultants
1. Review/Depreciation of Existing Code
2. Quality of Technical Documentation
Figure 7b: Cross reference of aspects to be improved compared to approach
Figure 8: Plan on executing the Ariba 9r1 Upgrade
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0
Internal
Resources and
Outside
Consultants
Internal
Resources
Only
Other Ariba Upgrade
Lab
9. Motivations for an Ariba Upgrade during Economic Uncertainty page 9
Comparing past approach to plan for 9r1
Finally, we also wanted to understand the
relationship and any correlation regarding how past
approaches may have influenced considerations
for the future approach. Looking at this relative
comparison (shown in Figure 9), here are some
observations:
• Of those that have Never Done a Major
Upgrade Previously
• 8% would use Internal Resources Only
• 31% would use the Ariba Upgrade Lab
• 38% would use Internal Resources and
Outside Consultants
• 23% would use another approach
• Of those companies using Internal Resources
Only Previously
• 50% would use Internal Resources Only again
• 0% would use the Ariba Upgrade Lab
• 38% would use Internal Resources and
Outside Consultants
• 12% would use another approach
• Of those using the Ariba Upgrade Lab Previously
• 9% would use Internal Resources Only
• 45% would use the Ariba Upgrade lab
• 27% would use Internal Resources and
Outside Consultants
• 18% would use another approach
• Of the companies using Internal Resources
and Outside Consultants Previously
• 4% would use Internal Resources Only
• 4% would use the Ariba Upgrade Lab
• 77% would use Internal Resources and
Outside Consultants
• 15% would use an other approach
Considerations impacting 9r1 decision
The next group of questions focused on how
companies are looking at the upgrade in terms
of major considerations for “go/no-go decisions”
based on common reasons. The reasons provided
for the rankings were some of the most common
considerations discussed during the various interview
sessions, upgrade workshops and other private
sessions hosted by Shelby in preparing the survey.
Reasons for upgrading to 9r1
The first consideration was simply to understand
what the main motivation is for upgrading to
9r1. As mentioned earlier in this paper, Ariba has
disclosed several platform features and benefits
over the course of the past several fiscal quarters.
Based upon prior conversations and what is known
by the Ariba customers with whom we spoke, it
would appear that the decision to upgrade was
a toss-up between the advantages provided by
new functionality (i.e., the value) versus the cost of
maintaining support. Improvements to the technical
infrastructure and the addition of new modules were
also considerations.
Figure 9: Approach taken on last major upgrade vs. approach planned for 9r1
Internal Resources & Outside
Consultants Previously
Ariba Upgrade Lab Previously
Internal Resources Only Previously
Never Done a Major Upgrade
•Internal Resources Only
•Ariba Upgrade Lab
•Internal Resources &
Outside Consultants
•Other Approach in
the Future
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
10. Motivations for an Ariba Upgrade during Economic Uncertainty page 10
So within this context, the survey categorized the decision
to move forward using the following four categories:
• Leverage new functionality of existing modules
• Deploy new modules in addition to existing ones
• Continue Ariba Technical Support Services (TSS)
support
• Improve technical infrastructure
In looking at Figure 10, initial observation reveals
that compared to the other categories, Continuing
Ariba Technical Support Services (TSS) support was
ranked 1st
by 44% of the respondents as the main
issue for most of the respondents.
Leverage new functionality of existing modules
ranked as high as 1st
, 2nd
and 3rd
priorities suggesting
understanding functionality is common to the discussion
for the upgrade and on the higher end of the priority scale.
Improve technical infrastructure ranked as high as 2nd
and 3rd
priorities. Thus, this area was not as high of
a concern as support, but ranked comparably with
Leveraging new functionality as the second priority.
Deploy new modules in addition to existing ones is
clearly not a priority compared to the other categories,
being ranked 4th
by 63% of the respondents.
Figure 10 reveals the following detailed results:
• Continue Ariba Technical Support (TSS)
Services was ranked
• 1st
by 44% of the respondents
• 2nd
by 11% of the respondents
• 3rd
by 27% of the respondents
• 4th
by 18% of the respondents
• Leverage new functionality of existing
modules was ranked
• 1st
by 34% of the respondents
• 2nd
by 33% of the respondents
• 3rd
by 23% of the respondents
• 4th
by 10% of the respondents
• Improve technical infrastructure was ranked
• 1st
by 21% of the respondents
• 2nd
by 32% of the respondents
• 3rd
by 29% of the respondents
• 4th
by 19% of the respondents
• Deploy new modules with existing ones
was ranked
• 1st
by 7% of the respondents
• 2nd
by 18% of the respondents
• 3rd
by 12% of the respondents
• 4th
by 63% of respondents
Figure 10: Ranked reasons for upgrading to 9r1 (Rank 1-4: 1-high, 4-low)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1 2 3 4
• Leverage new functionality of
existing modules
• Deploy new modules in addition
to existing ones
• Continue Ariba Technical Support
Services (TSS) support
• Improve technical infrastructure
11. Motivations for an Ariba Upgrade during Economic Uncertainty page 11
Reasons for delaying the 9r1 upgrade
Considering the reason for moving forward, the
next logical question was, what would delay moving
to 9r1? Given the newness of 9r1, many stated that
they were unfamiliar with the platform and did not
perceive significant improvements or cost savings
at this point. This is often associated with the fear of
being on the bleeding edge of technology without
having it tried and tested by others first. Finally,
there are those potentially looking at alternatives
based on strategic direction and tied to the
perception of improvements.
Figure 11 illustrates that the major reason for
delaying an upgrade was State of the business/
overall economy with 64% of the respondents clearly
ranking this as their 1st
priority and came really as
no surprise.
Evaluating other applications for spend management
was not as important of a factor for delaying as
other factors. This was ranked as a 4th
priority by
more than half or 56% of the respondents. This
could indicate a hesitation to commit dollars to any
software changes during the current economy.
As more of a business consideration, No perceived
improvements or savings was ranked 1st
by 28%,
ranked 2nd
by 40% and ranked 3rd
by 26% of the
survey respondents.
As more of a technical consideration, Do not want
to be cutting edge was ranked 1st
by only 14%, but
ranked 2nd
by 20% and increases to being ranked
3rd
by 38%. It would be interesting to see how this
ranking may change given more time and future
success of other Ariba customers implementing 9r1.
Figure 11 reveals the following detailed results:
• State of business/overall economy was ranked
• 1st
by 64% of the respondents
• 2nd
by 19% of the respondents
• 3rd
by 14% of the respondents
• 4th
by 3% of the respondents
• Do not want to be the cutting edge was ranked
• 1st
by 14% of the respondents
• 2nd
by 20% of the respondents
• 3rd
by 38% of the respondents
• 4th
by 28% of the respondents
• No perceived improvements or savings
was ranked
• 1st
by 28% of the respondents
• 2nd
by 40% of the respondents
• 3rd
by 26% of the respondents
• 4th
by 7% of the respondents
Figure 11: Prioritized reasons for delaying the 9r1 upgrade (Rank 1-4: 1-high, 4-low)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1 2 3 4
• State of business/overall
economy existing modules
• Do not want to be the
cutting edge
• No perceived improvements
or savings
• Evaluating other applications
for spend management
12. Motivations for an Ariba Upgrade during Economic Uncertainty page 12
• Evaluating other applications for spend
management was ranked
• 1st
by 13% of the respondents
• 2nd
by 17% of the respondents
• 3rd
by 15% of the respondents
• 4th
by 57% of the respondents
Internal challenges impacting the decision
We also wanted to consider prioritizing internal
challenges that would impact the upgrade. Common
internal factors noted by Ariba customers in the past
have included budget, resources, strategic vision/
business case, technology infrastructure/support
and other IT projects.
These factors are all impacted by economic
conditions; however, establishing budget would
seem to be impacted the most. Each factor is critical
in building a consensus for moving forward. It
would appear that establishing a strategic vision or
business case should rank high with establishing a
budget.
Illustrated in Figure 12, the results seem to be in line
with the previous question and in direct correlation
with the economic and business conditions, where
Budget ranked the highest with nearly 66% ranking
it as the 1st
priority as an internal challenge impacting
the decision.
Strategic Vision/Business Case was ranked 1st
by
only 14% of the respondents, yet 2nd
by 32% of the
respondents. The expectation was that business
strategy would have ranked as a 1st
priority for more
customers if concerns about the economy were not
so strong.
Resources were ranked 1st
by 25% of the respondents
and consistently ranked high as 2nd
by 27% and 3rd
by 31%. Given the newness of the application, this
would imply that there is concern about finding
experienced 9r1 resources.
Technology Infrastructure/Support ranked
consistently high down the line with 27% ranking it
3rd
, 25% ranking it 4th
and 33% ranking it 5th
.
Similarly, Other IT Project Deployment Priorities
were not as large an internal challenge as the other
factors increasing in its ranking down the line with
the highest ranking at 38% as the 5th
priority.
Figure 12 reveals the following detailed results:
• Budget was ranked
• 1st
by 66% of the respondents
• 2nd
by 15% of the respondents
• 3rd
by 10% of the respondents
• 4th
by 2% of the respondents
• 5th
by 8% of the respondents
1 2 3 4 5
Figure 12: Prioritized internal challenges facing the proposed 9r1 upgrade (Rank 1-5: 1-high, 5-low)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
• Budget
• Resources
• Strategic Vision/Business
Case
• Technology Infrastructure/
Support
• Other IT Project
Deployments Priorities
13. Motivations for an Ariba Upgrade during Economic Uncertainty page 13
• Resources was ranked
• 1st
by 25% of the respondents
• 2nd
by 27% of the respondents
• 3rd
by 31% of the respondents
• 4th
by 14% of the respondents
• 5th
by 3% of the respondents
• Strategic Vision/Business Case was ranked
• 1st
by 14% of the respondents
• 2nd
by 32% of the respondents
• 3rd
by 14% of the respondents
• 4th
by 25% of the respondents
• 5th
by 14% of the respondents
• Technology Infrastructure/Support was ranked
• 1st
by 5% of the respondents
• 2nd
by 9% of the respondents
• 3rd
by 27% of the respondents
• 4th
by 25% of the respondents
• 5th
by 33% of the respondents
• Other IT Project Deployments Priorities
was ranked
• 1st
by 11% of the respondents
• 2nd
by 21% of the respondents
• 3rd
by 11% of the respondents
• 4th
by 19% of the respondents
• 5th
by 38% of the respondents
Technical reasons for delaying
Another consideration was to look deeper at the
technical aspects for delaying. Though not ranked as
high on previous questions compared to economic
or budget considerations, the upgrade exercise
at its core is a technical project, and requires an
understanding of the challenges that would need to
be addressed.
Based on previous conversations, we identified five
key technical considerations for delaying 9r1, which
included concerns over performance of the new
system, mapping customizations in the system, OS/
DB support, middleware support and migration of
historical data.
Figure 13 illustrates the following observations based
on the survey.
Mapping customizations in the system was most
often noted as a primary concern ranked 1st
by 45%
and 2nd
by 36% of the survey respondents. This
dramatically drops off further down the rankings and
seems in parallel with the previous concerns noted in
Figure 7 as the biggest area for improvement during
the next upgrade.
Performance of the new system also seemed to be
on the higher end for most, being ranked 1st
by 35%,
2nd
by 21% and 3rd
by 25%.
Data migration of historical data topped off in the
middle, being ranked highest as a 3rd
priority by 38%
of the respondents.
Another easily identifiable trend was Middleware
support for the ERP system being not as important
as the other technical reasons for delaying the
upgrade. Given that support for middleware such
as TIBCO or MQ Series is being replaced with a
web services solution within Ariba, we would have
expected that this would have been a higher area
of concern. The trend is that it steadily increased its
rank down the line being ranked 2nd
by 19%, 3rd
by
11%, and then increases being ranked 4th
by 26%, and
5th
by 37% of the respondents.
OS/Database platform support also had a similar
pattern, ranking highest further down as 4th
priority
by 36% of respondents and 5th
by 25%.
Figure 13 reveals the following detailed results:
• Performance of the new system was ranked
• 1st
by 36% of the respondents
• 2nd
by 21% of the respondents
• 3rd
by 26% of the respondents
• 4th
by 14% of the respondents
• 5th
by 3% of the respondents
• Mapping customizations was ranked
• 1st
by 45% of the respondents
• 2nd
by 36% of the respondents
• 3rd
by 7% of the respondents
• 4th
by 5% of the respondents
• 5th
by 7% of the respondents
14. Motivations for an Ariba Upgrade during Economic Uncertainty page 14
• OS/Database platform support was ranked
• 1st
by 8% of the respondents
• 2nd
by 13% of the respondents
• 3rd
by 19% of the respondents
• 4th
by 36% of the respondents
• 5th
by 25% of the respondents
• Middleware support for the ERP system was ranked
• 1st
by 7% of the respondents
• 2nd
by 19% of the respondents
• 3rd
by 11% of the respondents
• 4th
by 26% of the respondents
• 5th
by 37% of the respondents
• Data migration of historical data was ranked
• 1st
by 26% of the respondents
• 2nd
by 12% of the respondents
• 3rd
by 38% of the respondents
• 4th
by 7% of the respondents
• 5th
by 17% of the respondents
Alternatives to the 9r1 Upgrade
In parallel with considerations for 9r1, we also asked
survey respondents about the impact of delaying
the 9r1 upgrade while continuing to use the current
version of Ariba, as well as investigating other
alternatives altogether.
Approaches to support
Given the ambiguity of moving forward at this
point, most respondents have a clear concern for
how to continue support with Ariba. The current
official end-of-life date for Ariba versions 8.x is
June 2009. Based on client discussions, some have
noted extensions being offered into 2010. During
discussions with some individuals, the feeling was to
manage their Ariba infrastructure independent of the
dates provided by Ariba, while others seemed to be
concerned about the cut-off date and were making
decisions on the upgrade based on it. The general
feeling, however, was a need to communicate with
Ariba about the issue regardless if there was a desire
to upgrade in the near or long term.
Essentially, the decision for support would be solved
in one of four ways with the following options
1 2 3 4 5
Figure 13: Technical reasons for delaying the 9r1 upgrade (Rank 1-5: 1-high, 5-low)
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
• Performance of the new
system
• Mapping customizations in
the system
• OS/Database platform
support
• Middleware support for the
ERP system
• Data migration of historical
data
15. Motivations for an Ariba Upgrade during Economic Uncertainty page 15
provided in the survey: Working with Ariba to
extend support for some interim period, Use internal
resources to continue running “as is” or look for
Support outside Ariba.
Illustrated in Figure 14, the responses provided the
following results:
• 43% stated they would try to come up with
some solution by Working with Ariba to extend
support for an interim period.
• 41% stated Using internal resources to continue
running “As Is”
• 13% stated looking for Support outside Ariba.
• 3% stated Other. (The results here seemed
inconclusive and stated similar reasons to those
provided or were not in a position to answer.)
Alternative solutions to 9r1
The survey also asked respondents if any alternative
applications are being considered instead of
upgrading. Based on our discussions, Ariba
customers have stated the following options:
On-Demand option - based on the current
availability of solutions, Ariba has made it more than
apparent that Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) is the
statement of direction for the company in the past
several years.5
This direction has influenced those
already familiar with a SaaS model or who may be
more comforFigure switching the software model.
If a company is dealing with a complex environment
such as integration to multi-back-end systems, a large
number of integration points and a more process-
phased implementation, an Enterprise approach
(a.k.a. CD, Behind-the-Firewall) will continue to be
a better option than On-Demand. Furthermore, 9r1
also provides an option for hybrid support with On-
Demand modules and may influence the decision to
move with the upgrade rather than switching to an
On-Demand model outright.
ERP option - Second, of the organizations
participating in the survey, the majority of the
survey respondents noted that SAP was the most
frequently used for ERP Financials and PeopleSoft
most common for HR. Again, this was not a surprise
based on our experience. It would also make sense
to infer that of those running a Tier 1 ERP application
such as SAP, Oracle or PeopleSoft may consider an
ERP solution in lieu of upgrading.
These ERP platforms have gained market share
in the past few years and are now recognized as
potential replacements for Ariba by analysts and
those that have already moved to these platforms.
If improvements to the new 9r1 platform do not
provide a convincing enough business case especially
with the arguments for using one platform, ease of
integration or enough internal IT support, ERP may
be seen as a better spend management solution for a
corporate enterprise in the long term.6
In considering these options, Figure 15 reveals that a
majority of survey respondents, 58% answered None,
implying hesitance to move to another solution before
considering 9r1 first. If they do not upgrade to 9r1,
22% would consider moving to an ERP solution, 17%
would consider Ariba On-Demand and the remainder
3% an Other solution, including considering another
best-of-breed solution and staying on Buyer 8.x.
Current timeline of survey participants
Based on the view of the survey participants, we also
wanted to understand how these respondents would
•Work with Ariba to extend support for an interim period
•Use internal resources to continue running “as is”
•Support outside Ariba
•Other
Figure 14: Approach to support prior to
discontinuation of product version
43%
41%
13%
3%
5 Bruce Richardson. AMR Research. A Closer Look at Ariba’s Very Quiet
Transformation. Friday, October 03, 2008
6 Andrew Bartels. The Forrester Wave™: eProcurement Solutions, Q2 2007.
April 20, 2007. p. 8.
16. Motivations for an Ariba Upgrade during Economic Uncertainty page 16
describe where they were in the process with Ariba
9r1 in terms of Researching the upgrade and/building
consensus with peers, Building a business case,
Preparing a project plan/looking for resources and
Implementing (the upgrade).
Based on Figure 16, the current status of survey
respondents is illustrated as the following:
Researching upgrade/conferring with peers
• 32% have Not Started
• 19% are Planning
• 36% are In Process
• 14% have Completed this step
Building a business case
• 40% have Not Started
• 23% are Planning
• 27% are In Process
• 10% have Completed this step
Preparing a project plan/looking for resources
• 63% have Not Started
• 20% are Planning
• 17% are In Process
• 0% have Completed this step
Implementing
• 87% have Not Started
• 12% are Planning
• 2% are In Process
• 0% have Completed this step
In terms of a timeline measured in months, most
respondents are looking at starting the upgrade
in nine months or more. Almost a quarter of the
Figure 15: Applications to be considered
before moving to 9r1
None
58%
ERP
22%
Ariba
On-Demand
17%
Other
Solution
3%
Figure 16: Current timeline for Ariba customers looking at 9r1
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Not Started Planning In Process Completed
• Researching upgrade
• Building a business case
• Preparing project plan
• Implementing
17. Motivations for an Ariba Upgrade during Economic Uncertainty page 17
respondents have not defined a project. No survey
participants responded that they are doing the
upgrade immediately.
Figure 17 illustrates the following results:
• 0% - Immediately
• 8% - 3–6 months
• 14% - 6–9 months
• 26% - 9 months to a year
• 29% - More than a year
• 23% - No defined project
Summary of survey results
In analyzing Ariba as a technology, it would appear
that most feel the Ariba platform is effective
in helping their corporate enterprises achieve
spend management initiatives. And based on
the respondents’ demographics, the question of
upgrading becomes one based on past experience,
corporate constraints, economic overtones and the
perception of Ariba’s strategic direction relative to
their own. Here is a summary of our findings.
Of those having previous upgrade experience, the
survey results demonstrate that the majority seem
to be satisfied with previous upgrade experiences
and may look to use a similar approach for future
upgrades. Regardless of the approach, the greatest
common concern regarding upgrading is for those
companies using Ariba to manage downstream
processes (such as requisitioning, order management,
invoice reconciliation and payment) due to the
amount of customization inherent to those modules.
Other concerns emphasized the need for more
coordination within the selected project team that
would require improvements to the transition to
end users, system/user acceptance testing, process
mapping and documentation on decisions when the
upgrade is complete.
The survey results also provide validation for the
thinking that current economic conditions have put
substantial pressure on corporate IT budgets and are
therefore preventing a definitive decision for moving
forward on the Ariba 9r1 upgrade. Setting aside the
notion of budget conflict due to economic factors,
the decision to upgrade would also appear to be
motivated by extending support and leveraging new
functionality of existing modules in 9r1.
Given the newness of the platform, most are not
motivated to upgrade at this point: this is mainly due
to the lack of perceived improvements or savings
and less about being concerned about cutting-edge
issues. However, technical issues addressed such
as performance of the new system and platform
support for existing IT infrastructures would
demonstrate a reason for delaying the upgrade until
Q4-2009/Q1-2010 when any initial software bugs
would most likely have been reported or fixed with a
service pack release.
Moving forward with the upgrade is also influenced
by Ariba’s strategic direction and the impact of ERP
vendors on the spend management industry. Over
the years, Ariba has been changing their software
model, focusing efforts on Software-as-a-Service
(SaaS). This shift to the SaaS delivery model from
product and financial support has been quite
explicit. For those companies that have traditionally
been working with Ariba primarily with a CD version,
Ariba’s change in strategy to On-Demand may have
shifted how companies will perceive their future with
Ariba’s technology footprint.
Furthermore, according to the analysts, ERP vendors
like Oracle and SAP have “caught up” with Ariba in
Figure 17:
Time frame being considered for the upgrade
No defined
project
23%
More than
a year
29%
9 months to a
year
26%
3—6
months
8%
6—9
months
14%
Immediately
0%
