SaaS Client Reporting vs Traditional In-House Model A brief review and explanation of Software as a Service Reporting vs a Traditional Reporting Model

Transcription

1 SaaS Client Reprting vs Traditinal In-Huse Mdel A brief review and explanatin f Sftware as a Service Reprting vs a Traditinal Reprting Mdel Authr: Andrew Sherlck Directr and C-funder Opus Nebula Opus Nebula

2 Table f Cntents SaaS White Paper 1 What is Sftware as a Service (SaaS)? Backgrund t the paper Mdel Cmparisns Key differences Selectin prcess and ttal cst f wnership Cmpetitive advantage The user experience The underlying client experience Cnclusins... 7 Opus Nebula Page 2

3 1 What is Sftware as a Service (SaaS)? SaaS White Paper Sftware as a Service is a sftware licensing and delivery mdel in which sftware is licensed n a subscriptin basis and is centrally hsted. It is smetimes referred t as n-demand sftware. SaaS is typically accessed by users via a web brwser. Surce Wikipedia 2 Backgrund t the paper Whilst the descriptin abve may be accurate, it s prbably nt that helpful. This paper attempts t explain SaaS reprting in mre detail and t cmpare SaaS reprting with a mre traditinal client reprting in-huse implementatin, frm the perspective f a business practitiner. T many peple within the asset management industry SaaS is a new term that they are unfamiliar with and knw little abut. The purpse f this paper is t prvide a clearer explanatin f SaaS, by drawing cmparisns between SaaS and a mre traditinal in-huse reprting system, and als t cnsider whether the utcmes and cnclusins identified will shape the future client reprting mdel. 3 Mdel Cmparisns 3.1 Key differences What are sme key differences when assessing SaaS client reprting and an in-huse client reprting system? T answer this first pint, I have listed belw a number f key elements that shuld be cnsidered fr any client reprting system selectin prcess, and assessed key differences between the mdels. Descriptin Traditinal Mdel SaaS Mdel Key differences High-level infrmatin gathering RFI/RFP RFI/RFP Same/similar Prf f cncept 3-6 mnths 1 week SaaS quicker G live 6-18 mnths 6-8 weeks SaaS quicker Ttal cst f wnership Multiple IT infrastructures. Fixed set up csts tariff based. SaaS cheaper IT team csts. Prject team csts. Reprt prductin and strage csts pay per use. Sftware licence fees. Scalable infrastructure. Reprt strage and distributin Time and cst f building and maintaining a library fr cmpleted reprts. Time and cst f develping and ther distributin prcesses. Slutin pre built. Cnfiguratin required. Standard cst t set up. Reduced clud based strage csts. SaaS cheaper and quicker Disaster recvery Requires separate building and separate infrastructure. May nt supprt entire wrkfrce. Clud based system may be accessed frm anywhere in the wrld, any time by all staff. SaaS lwer risk and lwer cst Opus Nebula Page 3

4 The table abve clearly shws that SaaS is generally faster and bradly less cstly than a traditinal in-huse client reprting system mdel. Key reasns fr this are that the SaaS service is already built and installed in a secure technical envirnment saving all the cst and effrt required t install and set up an in-huse system. Als, with an in-huse traditinal mdel, the build ut f the wrkflws, user dashbards, the reprts and the distributin methds all have t be undertaken, this is time-cnsuming and cstly. The clud is typically significantly cheaper t utilise than an in-huse infrastructure, due t the scale savings and efficiencies as well as the clud csts are typically charged as the system is used, rather than suffering the fixed csts f the in-huse infrastructure irrespective f use. 3.2 Selectin prcess and ttal cst f wnership With a traditinal client reprting system implementatin there are a number f standard steps that must be undertaken in rder t implement and use the new system, these typically include the fllwing: Select the new system Agree and pay the annual licence fee csts Buy and build the technical envirnments/infrastructures (circa 4 envirnments, including: Develpment, System Test, User Test, Live/Prductin) Create a prject team t wrk with the business and IT, t implement and develp the system, including: Define data surces and build data ingestin prcesses Define and build the data mart fr reprting purpses Define and build data validatin/checking prcesses Define and build text and cmmentary integratin prcesses Define and build all the reprt templates required Define and build wrkflw prcess Define and build user dashbards Define and build reprt strage library Define and build the required distributin prcesses Test each element and the entire end t end prcess There are many significant csts assciated with this mdel, fr instance; The cst f the 4 technical infrastructures The analysis and specificatin tasks IT develpment team csts Prject team csts The cst assciated with the time taken fr all these activities t cmplete, as the develpments have t run in sme sequential rder. The prject can t all be dne and delivered at nce. Many f these csts are ften verlked r nt taken int accunt when preparing a business case. Interestingly, in many cases it seems that the sftware licence fees equate t apprximately 10% f the entire implementatin csts, yet these fees are generally the element f the prject that gets the mst fcus. Perhaps the ther 90% f csts ught t be mre prminent and examined mre clsely. The image belw prvides a clear representatin f the tw pricing mdels and clearly demnstrates hw the verall csts are reduced within a SaaS envirnment. Opus Nebula Page 4

5 Surce: frecast.it Expenses are mre than meets the eye. With a SaaS slutin, all the required reprting elements (wrkflws, dashbards, reprts, library etc.) are all pre-built and can be delivered at nce. There is sme cnfiguratin required t perfectly align the slutin with the custmer such as branding, layut, user rles etc., but typically this takes a few weeks r a mnth r s, t cmplete, rather than the extended perid required t develp all the reprting elements required and then cnfigure them. Because the cre elements are pre-built and largely standardised, the cst f the initial and n-ging develpment can be shared acrss all custmers, rather than each custmer having t pay and develp their wn slutins. 3.3 Cmpetitive advantage It is als wrth cnsidering whether these reprting elements create genuine cmpetitive advantage fr a firm r whether they are actually mre f a hygiene factr and that many firms accept the csts and the time taken in the belief they are creating cmpetitive advantage and actually deliver t a similar standard as ther firms. Surely the cmpetitive advantage fr reprting exists in the fllwing: Hw quickly and accurately the reprts can be cmpleted and delivered t the client Hw clsely the reprt layut and cntent matches the client expectatin and requirements Hw clearly and lgically the data and infrmatin is presented Hw clsely the fund r prtfli is perfrming cmpared t expectatin and mandate Hw relevant and infrmative any accmpanying cmmentary is t the client Hw frequently reprt updates may be prvided t the client S the advantage appears mre abut the cntent f the reprts and hw quickly and accurately these can be delivered t the client, rather than whether yur user dashbard has an additinal element f flexibility r anther bell r whistle. With a SaaS mdel, the entire end-t-end reprting system is pre-built and ready t use in a clud-based infrastructure. Each custmer has its wn tenant r area within the system, s there is cmplete separatin f data, text, reprts etc. fr each individual custmer n the system. With Opus Nebula Page 5

6 the SaaS mdel there s n need t build new data interfaces fr each and every custmer, n need t build new wrkflw prcesses, new user dashbards r even new reprt templates they are all pre-built and available ff-the-shelf. In the SaaS mdel these pre-built reprting elements simply need t be cnfigured t suit each custmer. Fr example, reprt templates are cnfigured fr custmer specific branding, layut and cntent. Data interfaces and the data mart are cnfigured t accept data files frm custmer data surces and specific file frmats. Wrkflws are cnfigured t match custmer specific flws and specific users r teams. Rather than re-develping these key reprting elements every time a firm wants a new reprting system, in the SaaS mdel a pre-built template is used and simply cnfigured t the precise requirements f the custmer. Re-use f reprting elements is significantly quicker and cheaper than develpment frm scratch. Als, ver time, these reprting elements are refined and imprved as new features are develped and becme best f breed, and all SaaS custmers benefit frm the imprvements rather than each having t develp and pay fr the imprvements themselves. In the SaaS mdel the cre develpment and installatin is already cmpleted and just requires cnfiguratin, s the time t g-live with the new SaaS reprting system is significantly quicker typically 6-8 weeks, rather than 6 mnths t 1 r 2 years fr a mre traditinal in-huse system implementatin and rllut (depending n scpe and cmplexity). The underlying clients see the reprting benefits and imprvements s much earlier with a SaaS mdel. In the SaaS mdel the custmer knws up-frnt exactly what the service will cst t set up and t run. On-ging running csts n a traditinal mdel are fixed, and are equal t the entire cst f the technical envirnments, the IT team and prject team supprting and develping the system and the licence fees. As we see frm the iceberg image abve the in-huse csts are significantly larger than the SaaS csts. The SaaS mdel typically perates a pay-per-use mdel. Firms simply pay fr the reprts prduced and stred. There is a fixed cst per reprt, with discunts fr higher vlumes. With the traditinal mdel, the csts are typically the same hwever many r few reprts the system prduces, in the SaaS mdel yu nly pay fr what yu prduce. In the quiet perids, the SaaS mdel csts reduce, whereas with the traditinal mdel the csts are the same every day irrespective f use. Investment firms can g live significantly quicker with a SaaS mdel, and with reduced and knwn set-up and n-ging csts. 3.4 The user experience S it appears frm the sectins abve that there may be sme cmpelling reasns why the SaaS mdel may be attractive t a firm undertaking client reprting. But what des a SaaS system really lk like t a user and hw des it wrk, and are the systems different t use? These are ften the type f questins we encunter frm users wh are familiar with an in-huse client reprting system but unfamiliar with SaaS. This sectin seeks t explain the user experience. With regard t using the system, the business users wuld hardly even knw the difference. Rather than clicking n an icn n their desktp and lgging nt an internal system with a username and passwrd, they wuld simply click n a brwser (e.g. internet explrer, firefx, ggle chrme etc.) t access a lgin page n a web site and enter their username and passwrd t access and use the system. Once the user is lgged int the system, the end-t-end reprt prductin prcess is managed via the applicatin. There is n need t lg ff ne system and lg nt anther system t check smething, the SaaS slutin cntrls and manages the whle prcess. Cnsidering disaster recvery, such as when the custmer can t access their main building r the prductin infrastructure/systems. In the traditinal mdel, the custmer s staff mve t an alternative building kept free fr this purpse and lg nt a cmplete cpy f the main system. Often the cntingency building isn t big enugh t cpe with all the staff, and s a subset f staff relcates t d the wrk. Reprt delivery may slw dwn as there are less peple wrking, and s client service levels may lwer. In the SaaS mdel, all the staff can cntinue wrking, and simply need access t wifi/internet t cntinue t d their jb. The system may be accessed frm Opus Nebula Page 6

7 anywhere in the wrld via a brwser making hme wrking a real pssibility in the event f a disaster scenari. Micrsft ensures that the Azure Clud is highly resilient with high levels f availability (circa 99.9% and abve). The scale and prcessing capacity available in the clud wuld typically far exceed any in-huse infrastructure, and SaaS systems are typically built t explit the high levels f capacity and pwer available in the clud, such that reprt prductin is undertaken in a very shrt time frame and system respnse times are fast. When the system is less busy the SaaS system can autmatically scale dwn and save pwer and cst, whereas typically the in-huse infrastructure will remain fully available all the time, irrespective f use and therefre waste pwer and cst. S the users wuld have a very similar lgin experience with a SaaS slutin vs an in-huse system. The SaaS system wuld be available and wuld wrk frm any desktp, PC, tablet etc. fr ffice wrking, hme wrking and in a building disaster recvery scenari, whereas the inhuse mdel wuld incur additinal csts and prvide a weaker slutin in the event f a disaster scenari. 3.5 The underlying client experience Where a firm invlved in client reprting adpts the SaaS reprting mdel, there are a number f benefits realised by their underlying clients. The main benefits experienced by the underlying client wuld be imprved reprting, delivered faster. Faster in terms f the initial time t market, and thereafter fr each reprting perid. The high levels f autmatin and wrkflw within the end-t-end reprting prcess wuld ensure the regular reprts are delivered mre reliably and faster fr each reprting perid. The autmated distributin prcesses wuld nt nly be faster than a manual prcess, but wuld als remve the chance f an busy supervisr accidently sending the wrng reprt t a client. The underlying client shuld als experience imprved client service, as the efficiency and flexibility f the SaaS service wuld allw fr mre time t be spent reviewing and discussing the reprts with the client, rather than simply prducing and distributing the reprts. Additinally, if the underlying client has an additinal reprting requirement, this shuld be mre easily accmmdated thrugh the SaaS mdel than an internal build. S the SaaS mdel supprts an imprved client experience fr the underlying clients. 4 Cnclusins In cnclusin there appear many rbust reasns why SaaS based client reprting represents the future mdel fr investment firms. Speed t market, fixed, knwn and reduced csts are f curse a benefit alng with reduced peratinal risks, t name a few. But perhaps the mst imprtant f all is the imprvements SaaS reprting facilitates in servicing the underlying clients. Cnsider this; investment firms can prvide imprved servicing t their underlying clients, AND can reduce their peratinal csts, reduce their peratinal risks and be mre flexible and scalable in the future by mving t a SaaS based reprting mdel. It wuld be irratinal nt t wuldn t it? Opus Nebula ffers a full end-t-end client reprting SaaS slutin, develped, cnfigured and delivered via the Micrsft Azure Clud. The funding directrs f Opus Nebula have ver 50 years f client reprting business and IT experience between them. If yu are planning t update yur inhuse reprting system, r lking t replace thse manual prcesses in the near future, please cntact us t discuss yur client reprting requirements and challenges. SaaS may have sunded scary and very technical at the start f this piece, but hpefully nw yu understand hw it wrks, the key differences and significant benefits f SaaS cmpared t the traditinal in-huse mdel. See hw Opus Nebula can help yu r cntact us at enquiries@pus-nebula.cm The Opus Nebula SaaS slutin is Pwered by SimCrp Cric and hsted in the Micrsft Azure Clud. Opus Nebula Page 7