As we approach the new year - there are a number of things on the plate for all of us. We need to close 2010 and finish the current year strong. We need to plan and put on paper our goals for 2011 - to have SMART goals that can be measured and watched over time so we can be accountable to execute them consistently and completely. We need to celebrate our blessings and be grateful for all the good things we have experienced. A new year is a time of new opportunity.
Unfortunately I have been watching with some amazement the reaction, or lack there of, to the new Microsoft MPN partner program. I wrote about this back in August and encouraged partners to begin planning and putting their strategy in place. It seems many have ignored or failed to take any action, and now as we move into the key season of partner renewals, there is panic and frustration that partners are not ready for the transition. This program has definitely raised the bar - but that is not news either. In fact, it has been the plan and came at the request of partners from around the world. This has been in planning stages for some time, and was covered in my blog post back in April as well as dozens of communications from Redmond as well.
The landscape has changed and it is time for true Microsoft partners to jump on board and embrace MPN. Diane Golshan wrote a great blog post last week addressing some of the key misconceptions. Putting things off is not the right answer. Just living under the grandfathering of benefits is not the same thing as embracing the program and putting your strategic plan in place and becoming fully engaged with MPN. Take a read of Diane's post - check out some of Eric Ligman's posts as well. This transition is a change - none of us like change - but it is the future and we need to get on board - embrace it and take advantage of the differentiation that all of us desire. Don't miss the boat on this important opportunity. Spend some time - leverage the resources available - and put your company in a place that will be different than most of your competitors who are just sitting back and waiting. We don't see a lot of chances like this in the channel to really be different. My advice is to get after it and do it quickly.
Showing posts with label Partners. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Partners. Show all posts
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
The New Microsoft Partner Program (MPN)
While there is some buzz of discontentment about the new MPN program, I applaud the moves that Microsoft is making to revamp their partner program and create some differentiation once again among their channel partners. Under the current model – there are far too many gold certified partners, and it has become impossible to create any differentiation. The new model creates three levels with very different requirements that definitely not all partners will be able to achieve. SBSC was on the chopping block for a while, and through the determined support of some inside the walls at Microsoft, and a number of us as partners, it has survived and will play a vital role in providing community for all partners serving SMB that want to be part of it going forward. That is very good for the partner community as it gives all a place to fit in the new model.
The Small Business and Midmarket Solution Provider competencies allow differentiation one step up – and will fit many serving the SMB marketplace. The stakes are a bit higher but the benefits of having two different places to fit are very good. When you add the Advanced Competencies for these two areas, you really begin to differentiate the channel. Purely the required number of staff to even qualify here is one major separation point. And the levels these folks need to achieve is significantly higher than the old gold certified requirements. Throw in some of the other requirements and you have a level that is once again a challenge to achieve. I personally have lobbied for this for some time now – to allow companies that have some scale and have made significant investments in their team to be able to differentiate in the SMB channel. This level is not designed to fit all – only a small minority will be able to achieve this level. But that is not a turning away from the SMB – it is a matter of Microsoft listening to partners and creating a tiered partner program that allows companies to make investments and commitments to set themselves apart in the chosen areas they want to focus.
IMHO – Microsoft is showing a real commitment to the SMB partner by adding these two areas as full fledged competencies. After all, previously we only had SBSC to serve as the SMB banner and it wasn’t a real level – sort of some hybrid less than full certification. Now we are finally seeing the SMB treated just like the enterprise competencies with the same kinds of requirements and ultimately the same ability to market and focus on specific targets we want to build practices around. Requiring current version tests to qualify is just another of the very good decisions that have been made in rolling out MPN.
I believe Microsoft has done their job well and thought through the needs of the channel – from small partners who still have their home in the SBSC – to larger partners who can now build a practice and leverage their huge staff investment and be able to differentiate themselves from others in the channel. Some will feel it is unfair because they can’t get to the top level after being gold certified under the current program. I don’t think that is a ratcheting down of focus – I see it as a very positive ratcheting up of creating a partner program that will get larger partners more interested in being part of the SMB and Midmarket competencies again. Tiering of partners is critical to make any program of value. I applaud Microsoft for making it happen with this MPN plan.
If there is a downside - it is the delay in making the requirements known and creating the gap analysis tools that most every partner will need to use to determine their best fit in the new MPN. It is nothing like the current program where resources apply broadly across many competencies. In the new world, we need to map our staff to specific tracks and testing so we can get the most bang for the literal buck as the cost to participate has gone up. With these things kicking in fairly soon - partners need time to put their strategy together and get their team trained and tested. Every day the guidance is not available makes it more difficult for companies desiring the Advanced Competencies to achieve those. I hope there is some major haste made to get the tools in place to guide us to success. Otherwise the hard work and value will be pushed off as partners try and figure out what to do.
Many vendors are moving the opposite way - trying to add more partners and create a bigger pool. In HTG, we are taking a similar approach - focusing on depth and differentiation rather than breadth and the same old stuff. Great job Microsoft for making this move to the next generation. It fits right along with the other major shifts we will have to make addressing the reality of the Cloud.
The Small Business and Midmarket Solution Provider competencies allow differentiation one step up – and will fit many serving the SMB marketplace. The stakes are a bit higher but the benefits of having two different places to fit are very good. When you add the Advanced Competencies for these two areas, you really begin to differentiate the channel. Purely the required number of staff to even qualify here is one major separation point. And the levels these folks need to achieve is significantly higher than the old gold certified requirements. Throw in some of the other requirements and you have a level that is once again a challenge to achieve. I personally have lobbied for this for some time now – to allow companies that have some scale and have made significant investments in their team to be able to differentiate in the SMB channel. This level is not designed to fit all – only a small minority will be able to achieve this level. But that is not a turning away from the SMB – it is a matter of Microsoft listening to partners and creating a tiered partner program that allows companies to make investments and commitments to set themselves apart in the chosen areas they want to focus.
IMHO – Microsoft is showing a real commitment to the SMB partner by adding these two areas as full fledged competencies. After all, previously we only had SBSC to serve as the SMB banner and it wasn’t a real level – sort of some hybrid less than full certification. Now we are finally seeing the SMB treated just like the enterprise competencies with the same kinds of requirements and ultimately the same ability to market and focus on specific targets we want to build practices around. Requiring current version tests to qualify is just another of the very good decisions that have been made in rolling out MPN.
I believe Microsoft has done their job well and thought through the needs of the channel – from small partners who still have their home in the SBSC – to larger partners who can now build a practice and leverage their huge staff investment and be able to differentiate themselves from others in the channel. Some will feel it is unfair because they can’t get to the top level after being gold certified under the current program. I don’t think that is a ratcheting down of focus – I see it as a very positive ratcheting up of creating a partner program that will get larger partners more interested in being part of the SMB and Midmarket competencies again. Tiering of partners is critical to make any program of value. I applaud Microsoft for making it happen with this MPN plan.
If there is a downside - it is the delay in making the requirements known and creating the gap analysis tools that most every partner will need to use to determine their best fit in the new MPN. It is nothing like the current program where resources apply broadly across many competencies. In the new world, we need to map our staff to specific tracks and testing so we can get the most bang for the literal buck as the cost to participate has gone up. With these things kicking in fairly soon - partners need time to put their strategy together and get their team trained and tested. Every day the guidance is not available makes it more difficult for companies desiring the Advanced Competencies to achieve those. I hope there is some major haste made to get the tools in place to guide us to success. Otherwise the hard work and value will be pushed off as partners try and figure out what to do.
Many vendors are moving the opposite way - trying to add more partners and create a bigger pool. In HTG, we are taking a similar approach - focusing on depth and differentiation rather than breadth and the same old stuff. Great job Microsoft for making this move to the next generation. It fits right along with the other major shifts we will have to make addressing the reality of the Cloud.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
The Truth About Vista
Over the past month or so I have had multiple reporters for the trade rags contact me about Vista/Win 7 and other Microsoft products. The angle on their stories has been to basically get me to provide quotes stating that Microsoft has screwed up with Vista and they are giving up and making another run at an OS with Win 7. I haven’t been willing to do that because quite frankly, I find Vista works pretty well for us. I am typing this blog post on my Vista notebook which has been running very nicely since beta. I wrote a few thoughts for the media and I wanted to share my opinions with you. I hope you find them useful and thought provoking. I am confident they will never make the press because they are opposite of what they have been digging for. So this blog allows me to share them in spite of their determination to keep it quiet. Here is what I shared:
I am a staunch Microsoft supporter and honestly have not found Vista to be an issue. We have been running it in our organization since beta, and have moved a number of our clients to that platform successfully. I would never say it was a perfect OS. But having been able to see firsthand some of the challenges in writing software, I am a lot more sympathetic to some of the issues that customers create. Quite honestly, I am amazed things work as well as they do when I work with third party vendors who are still writing code that is designed for OS’ that are two or three generations old. Microsoft takes the heat for it, but it is not their issue. Third party vendors need to write to the specs and stay current. We should be able to expect that as they didn’t give us their software for free.
HTS was able to take two of our clients to Redmond early in the Vista cycle and spend a week testing their software in labs on the Microsoft campus. Every time there was an issue with a piece of software, when we dug into it and talked with the application provider, it came to light that they had not followed the rules for design and coding or had failed to update things to work with the new OS. Is that Microsoft’s problem? They take the blame but they can’t really fix these issues at all. It is the third party vendors that have created a majority of the problems we have experienced. In many cases, we have moved customers to an application that is Vista ready and things work fine. Most problems are not Vista problems.
Do things work better with a service pack release – probably, maybe or sometimes. That again is often related to the fact that end users are running on old equipment or in non supported environments and expect Microsoft to make things work. We see it in our client base all the time. “What do you mean this seven year old printer isn’t supported anymore?” How come I can’t use this or that is a common question. The reality is that the marketplace changes and no one can write code that supports all these products and environments indefinitely. People have to be willing to stay current with their products and applications or be willing to accept the fact they are making a choice – that they may not be supported, or heaven forbid not work. I don’t see that as Microsoft’s problem – although they get blamed.
As for preparing us for releases, that too seems to be a choice. We have been running Win 7 internally for some time now and doing our testing, learning and due diligence to get ready. It is available and can be downloaded and tested with plenty of lead time prior to its pending release. That is not really again a Microsoft issue, it is a lack of discipline and planning by VAR’s who don’t do their homework or corporations that choose to just sit back and play the blame game rather than the work it takes to run a strong IT shop. Contrary to popular desire, stuff just doesn’t work without some effort (thankfully for us as VAR’s) and it does require planning and budget to stay current and competitive with technology. We pride ourselves in engaging with Microsoft early and often and it has been a great asset to us and our customer base. My team is well versed in their products way before release because we have tested and most times implemented them in controlled test environments for real world customers prior to product launch. That is a choice we make and by making it we don’t run into the kinds of experiences many just want to point fingers and blame Microsoft for.
Success is a two way street. They build good products, they provide a lot of opportunities to get engaged and learn, but at the end of the day it is the choice of a VAR or customer as to what they do with it. If people don’t prepare, do their homework, have a plan and execute it in a disciplined fashion – well they get what they deserve – chaos, frustration and unhappiness. But for those who do – who follow the guidance and planning, put in the effort to learn and understand, verify that third parties have done what they need to – those customers end up with little to no disruption and a very solid environment. We had it with XP, we have it with Vista, and we will have it with Win 7. The end result is not nearly as dependent on the product – it is very important but they don’t ship stuff that won’t work – it is dependent on how that product gets deployed. Microsoft doesn’t control that – they just are blessed with all the blame customers and VAR’s want to place when they don’t do things right and it blows up in their face.
Some of you will read this and think I have been bought off by Microsoft. That is not accurate or true. Microsoft is a partner to us at HTS, and a very important one at that, but these things I share are not specific to Microsoft. You can change the vendor name and products and it applies across the board. The problem is not normally the vendor, it is the VAR or end user who fail to perform. Vendors get blamed, they have to try and make it work in spite of us, but when we look in the mirror the finger most often is pointing at us. Before you go off on a vendor next time, ask yourself if you did your homework, learned the technology, read the manual, got your team certified, followed the guidance, tested, planned and deployed according to plan. If you can say yes to those things, then you may have a sympathetic ear from me. But in most cases, that is not what happens. To that I say you are on your own.
I am a staunch Microsoft supporter and honestly have not found Vista to be an issue. We have been running it in our organization since beta, and have moved a number of our clients to that platform successfully. I would never say it was a perfect OS. But having been able to see firsthand some of the challenges in writing software, I am a lot more sympathetic to some of the issues that customers create. Quite honestly, I am amazed things work as well as they do when I work with third party vendors who are still writing code that is designed for OS’ that are two or three generations old. Microsoft takes the heat for it, but it is not their issue. Third party vendors need to write to the specs and stay current. We should be able to expect that as they didn’t give us their software for free.
HTS was able to take two of our clients to Redmond early in the Vista cycle and spend a week testing their software in labs on the Microsoft campus. Every time there was an issue with a piece of software, when we dug into it and talked with the application provider, it came to light that they had not followed the rules for design and coding or had failed to update things to work with the new OS. Is that Microsoft’s problem? They take the blame but they can’t really fix these issues at all. It is the third party vendors that have created a majority of the problems we have experienced. In many cases, we have moved customers to an application that is Vista ready and things work fine. Most problems are not Vista problems.
Do things work better with a service pack release – probably, maybe or sometimes. That again is often related to the fact that end users are running on old equipment or in non supported environments and expect Microsoft to make things work. We see it in our client base all the time. “What do you mean this seven year old printer isn’t supported anymore?” How come I can’t use this or that is a common question. The reality is that the marketplace changes and no one can write code that supports all these products and environments indefinitely. People have to be willing to stay current with their products and applications or be willing to accept the fact they are making a choice – that they may not be supported, or heaven forbid not work. I don’t see that as Microsoft’s problem – although they get blamed.
As for preparing us for releases, that too seems to be a choice. We have been running Win 7 internally for some time now and doing our testing, learning and due diligence to get ready. It is available and can be downloaded and tested with plenty of lead time prior to its pending release. That is not really again a Microsoft issue, it is a lack of discipline and planning by VAR’s who don’t do their homework or corporations that choose to just sit back and play the blame game rather than the work it takes to run a strong IT shop. Contrary to popular desire, stuff just doesn’t work without some effort (thankfully for us as VAR’s) and it does require planning and budget to stay current and competitive with technology. We pride ourselves in engaging with Microsoft early and often and it has been a great asset to us and our customer base. My team is well versed in their products way before release because we have tested and most times implemented them in controlled test environments for real world customers prior to product launch. That is a choice we make and by making it we don’t run into the kinds of experiences many just want to point fingers and blame Microsoft for.
Success is a two way street. They build good products, they provide a lot of opportunities to get engaged and learn, but at the end of the day it is the choice of a VAR or customer as to what they do with it. If people don’t prepare, do their homework, have a plan and execute it in a disciplined fashion – well they get what they deserve – chaos, frustration and unhappiness. But for those who do – who follow the guidance and planning, put in the effort to learn and understand, verify that third parties have done what they need to – those customers end up with little to no disruption and a very solid environment. We had it with XP, we have it with Vista, and we will have it with Win 7. The end result is not nearly as dependent on the product – it is very important but they don’t ship stuff that won’t work – it is dependent on how that product gets deployed. Microsoft doesn’t control that – they just are blessed with all the blame customers and VAR’s want to place when they don’t do things right and it blows up in their face.
Some of you will read this and think I have been bought off by Microsoft. That is not accurate or true. Microsoft is a partner to us at HTS, and a very important one at that, but these things I share are not specific to Microsoft. You can change the vendor name and products and it applies across the board. The problem is not normally the vendor, it is the VAR or end user who fail to perform. Vendors get blamed, they have to try and make it work in spite of us, but when we look in the mirror the finger most often is pointing at us. Before you go off on a vendor next time, ask yourself if you did your homework, learned the technology, read the manual, got your team certified, followed the guidance, tested, planned and deployed according to plan. If you can say yes to those things, then you may have a sympathetic ear from me. But in most cases, that is not what happens. To that I say you are on your own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)