SAP's WEAK SPOTS:
`1. Lack of Best of Breed TES Suite
`How does SAP's current and future product offerings fit in with their sales needs going
`forward? From an earlier conversation with cavalier, OMS will play a key part In Cavalier's
`requirements (having the 250 dealers being able to use the product). SAP has very weak
`OMS and SCS on the front end. The dealers (as well as Cavalier's sales reps), liked the user
`interface of BaanFrontOffice much better. Easier to Implement and use, smaller application
`footprint, more standard features ... etc.
`• Gartner Says:
`•
`"SAP's kay competitors vary from ont~ to two generations a/lead, depending on
`vertical industry, and ills important to note that third-generation TES solutions
`lack a significant contribution to return on investment, as compared to fourth and
`above TES generation solutions"( of which BaanFroniOffice provides)
`"SAP has not announced its technology or strategy for a "small footprint" RDBMS
`for laptop users"
`"SAP will not maintain all of its offerings under a single unified architecture
`through 2003 (0. 7 probability). •
`
`•
`
`•
`
`2. Functionality
`• From what we understand, SAP's configuration and OMS solutions are just simple
`extensions of back office functionality. Is what they are actually able to deliver (as
`opposed to showing in a demo) going to meet their needs now? In the future? How
`can they be sure? Shift their focus towards realizing that the easiest way to satisfy
`their customer's needs Is through a user friendly front end. Functionality is a key part
`of the equation.
`• Gartner Says:
`•
`"Integration is irrelevant if the deployed applications do not meet tf1e needs of the
`sales organization (as functionally superior applications are available today from
`many vendors, e.g., Siebel, Sales Technologies, Aurum Software/Baan and
`Trilogy). With strong vendors continuing to enhance their products and SAP
`lagging them, enterprises should not expect functionality that achieves
`competitive parity until the second half of 2000 at the earliest (0.8 probability)."
`"SAP's Sales Configuration Engine has been in development for more than two
`years and provides base functionality but lacks competitive graphical
`maintenance tools and needs assessment capabilities"
`"Prospective SAP clients have cited functionality gaps to support sales
`organizations and poor system administration tools as the primary reasons for
`selecting other SCS vendor alternatives. It still falls short of pricing configuration
`features and user interface capabilities found in leading products"
`
`•
`
`•
`
`3. Synchronization
`This may not be as big of an issue with a few "connected" Cavalier sales reps, but what
`happens when they extend the system to the dealers? How scalable is their synchronization
`with remote users?
`• Gartner says:
`•
`"SAP has little experience meeting the needs of the remote disconnected worker"
`• Baan/Aururn's database synchronization technology is compelling, since it uses
`database scanning and stored procedures for extract options
`
`*****This wasn't as much of an Issue with Cavalier, because all of their sales reps are
`connected at this point. It may be something that you can leverage in another competitive
`situation.
`
`CONFIDENTIAL- ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`VERSATA EXHIBIT 2021
`SAP v. VERSATA
`CASE CBM2012-00001
`
`VSAP _92512228
`
`

`

`4. Time to Market
`Cavalier has been sold on a demo, not a product. How are the likely delays in SAP’s product
`going to negatively effect Cavalier’s implementation timeline? SAP hasn’t even entered beta
`testing yet, they are selling them on vaporware and vision. There is a high risk that they will
`be unable to deliver.
`¯ Gartner Says:
`¯ "SAP’s sales configuration engine is SAP’s next generation of its product
`configuration functionality, has been ut~del- development since !996, and has less
`than three production references."
`"At this time, SAP~ FOCUS initiative for SFA can best be described as being in alpha
`stage. SAP has not demonstrated to GartnerGroup a working system administration
`and customization environment"
`
`¯
`
`5. Cost of Ownership
`SAP’s standard configuration UI looks like an ERP screen, but it can be customized. What is
`the real cost of ownership for Cavalier?
`¯
`Upg;~ade Path: Since there is a high probability that SAP customized their config UI for
`the demo for Cavalier, they need to ask themselves- where does that put them as far as
`an upgrade path is concerned? Most likely in a bad place when they upgrade to the next
`version of SAP’s configurator, and definitely in a bad spot in terms of integrating with their
`other front office components such as OMS.
`¯ Customization has serious negative impacts such as increa’.~ed development and
`rnain!enance costs.
`¯ Gartner says:
`¯
`"Because SAP will lag leading TES vendor offerings, through 1999, enterprises that
`sacrifice "must have" user functionality for tight SAP R/3 integration will suffer hi.qh
`project failure rates (0.8 probability)."
`¯ Part of the challenge for SAP is that as an organization, # appears to be unable to
`relate to its installed base. Arcane details required for ease of installation that are
`often second nature to SAP employees are either mysteries or new revelations to
`many customers and consultants.
`SAP continues not to recogniz,~ that R/3 is a complex solution. As a result,
`GartnerGroup continues to believe that to be successful with R/3, enterprises must
`be extremely committed to understanding the R/3 product suite and dedicating
`resources to its care and feeding much more than other solutions. Much of this
`requirement is because of the complex and technological infrastructure of R/3
`
`¯
`
`..... Our UI is a standard feature, no customization. We also have the following add-on
`components:
`¯ We are product based with a guaranteed upgrade path
`¯
`If customizations are required, they are very easy to do
`¯ Upgrade path for add-in customizations is guaranteed
`Declarative (easy, plain english) modeling language
`
`The Bottom Line
`¯ Gartner says:
`¯ "At least with the current release, and for the next few years, SAP will likely t~e unable
`~o mount a serious challenge to the best-of-breed providers"
`"Users making fourth-generation and above field sales automation solutions through
`4Q99, regardless of R/3 customer status, should evaluate atteFnatives."
`
`¯
`
`CONFIDENTIAL- ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`VSAP 92512229
`
`