I think the real question here isn't whether roll your own software will replace large complex 'configurable' systems, but whether companies that roll their own will replace the companies that don't.

ie are the efficiency gains of having something that's exactly tailored to you enough to create a competitive advantage.

It's back to the old idea - of software eating the world.

So for example in the UK - there is a relatively new 'energy' company called Octopus - it's grown and grown and finally overtaken the old established players.

In reality it's not an energy company - it's a software company - that used it's expertise in software to overtake it's energy supplier competitors - it was able to provide innovative products in the market because it controlled it's own software - rather than 'big vendor says no'.

I think it's telling that the founder originally left school at 16 to write computer games, before coming back to do a degree etc.

ie the question is - for any particular industry what's the benefit of custom software. Does a bakery having it's own give it enough of an advantage?

▲

larodi 31 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Much of this 'configurability' is there only to allow SAAS. Normally, a mid and small business does not need to tune their IT that much all the time. This is some wet dream it IT service providers' heads. In reality most business (perhaps 80% of it) can work with very old systems, and there are so many examples that prove the statement, that I wouldn't even care to make a list.

> Does a bakery having it's own give it enough of an advantage? 50 bakeries of the same franchise may benefit from it. But it does not need to be SAP or Dynamics365 or something along this line to work. People been doing business with text-mode AS360's for ages, and nobody complained. Coca Cola was using AS-something for the warehousing in 2004, while it was already discontinued for years.

	▲	arethuza 15 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		"Much of this 'configurability' is there only to allow SAAS" ERPs and CRMs were highly configurable long before SaaS.

▲

alansaber 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Naturally something custom creates advantage as better software mirrors better workflows. I think the more pertinent point is small companies saving money by accessing custom software on the cheap vs paying for a saas forever.

	▲	DrScientist 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> I think the more pertinent point Not sure it is. Unless the Saas company is ripping you off (sure it can happen - but hopefully competition in the market would manage that over time ), then it won't be that much different from your own maintenance costs. I always think if that's the business case for custom software ( a few quid license cost savings ) then you probably shouldn't be doing it as there is almost always a better ROI case for transformation through custom software. So back to the bakery case. Is the benefit savings on license costs, or the fact that you can give much better estimates to customers, better de-risk supply chain issues, hire less people to operate, and improve morale via reducing busy work? All these sort of things have to be more valuable than a few quid on licensing.
	▲	calvinmorrison 42 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		however, many workflows are part of generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP for short. Many workflows are about B2B transactions. PO -> Sales Order -> Invoicing workflows. ASNs, etc. So a lot of workflows are not driven by companies but by the standard operating framework of B2B

▲

arethuza 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm a bit bitter about Octopus, although they did rescue us from the horrors of our previous supplier their insistence on us getting "smart" meters that can't then function as smart meters because of poor signal and are actually more difficult to read than our old meters has left me not hugely impressed with them.

▲

DrScientist 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Wasn't the smart meter rollout ( and the poor choice of hardware etc ) a central government initiative. Octopus merely used their software agility to make the most of it.

ie not sure issues with the smart meters themselves is the fault of Octopus - as the meter standards are set centrally so they can still work if you switch supplier?

Back to another old adage,

"people who are really serious about software should make their own hardware"

▲

arethuza 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Octopus pressured us into getting smart meters and they're the folks I am speaking to to get the things to work so as far as I'm concerned they're on the hook.

Mind you, I couldn't help noticing that the meters themselves are owned by a leasing company... (there is a plate on each one explaining this).

	▲	DrScientist 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Again I think that's mostly the governments fault - they are setting mandatory smart meter rollout targets for the energy suppliers every year.