O slideshow foi denunciado.
Utilizamos seu perfil e dados de atividades no LinkedIn para personalizar e exibir anúncios mais relevantes. Altere suas preferências de anúncios quando desejar.

Saugatuck Technology 201 CFO/CIO Survey - Cloud Financials

This report presents the comprehensive data and relevant analysis of enterprise finance and IT leaders regarding:
The evolution of the Finance function

Challenges that may exist with current Financial Management Systems

Preferences for deploying new business software

How cloud computing and advanced analytics fits into new business plans

The survey was designed specifically to help understand how companies will acquire and use Cloud-based business software solutions to help better manage their companies over the next 2-4 years.

  • Entre para ver os comentários

Saugatuck Technology 201 CFO/CIO Survey - Cloud Financials

  1. 1. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Saugatuck Technology’s 2014 CFO / CIO Survey: Cloud Financials – The Third Wave Emerges B. McNee, B. Guptill, M. West, A. Bakker, C. Burns December 18, 2014 1492SSR Special Research Reprint Courtesy of Tagetik:
  2. 2. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Table of Contents • About this Report • Key Trends and Implications • Saugatuck Insights – Summary • Survey Findings – Changing CFO Priorities: Importance – Changing CFO Priorities: Effectiveness – Status of Financial Management Systems – Will Cloud Replace On-Premises Financials? – Evolution of Financials Footprint 2014-2018 – Moving Financials to the Cloud: Key Concerns – Moving Financials to the Cloud: Timing – Statements on Financial Management Systems – Statements on FP&A • Appendix A – About the Survey / Demographics • Appendix B – Research Reprint License • About Saugatuck Technology Page: 2
  3. 3. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com About this Report • This document presents the comprehensive data and relevant analysis from Saugatuck's 2014 North American survey of enterprise finance and IT leaders regarding the evolution of the Finance function, issues / challenges that may exist with current Financial Management Systems, and preferences for deploying new business software – specifically related to Cloud computing and advanced analytics. • The survey was designed specifically to help understand how companies will acquire and use Cloud-based business software solutions to help better manage their companies over the next two-to-four years. • In total, 317 finance and IT executives participated in the research, with 85 percent senior decision makers with Director and above titles. The full survey methodology, population and demographics are presented at the end of this document. • Bill McNee is the lead author of this report, with contributions from Bruce Guptill, Mike West, Alex Bakker, and Charlie Burns. All data, analysis, and other content herein was developed by, and is the sole property of, Saugatuck Technology Inc. All content is copyrighted by Saugatuck Technology Inc. • This document is intended for distribution to, and use by, ongoing subscription research clients of Saugatuck Technology Inc. Limited distribution and use by business and IT media will be as expressly authorized by Saugatuck, or by clients who have purchased reprint and distribution rights (see Appendix B). Page: 3
  4. 4. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Key Trends and Implications • The third wave of Cloud Business Solution adoption – focused on Financial Management – is gaining significant momentum. – While discrete functional categories are leading the charge, including Planning / Forecasting, Analytics / Performance Management, Payroll and Expense Mgmt. – pent up demand will shift Cloud-based Core Accounting from “early adopter” to “early mainstream” status during 2015-2017. – The rise of powerful Cloud-based analytics and mobility support have significantly advanced the value proposition for finance buyers. • But the shift from on-premises to Cloud Financials will follow its own path – as a more complex set of deployment scenarios will play out vs. the experience of Wave I (CRM) and Wave II (HCM, Marketing) Cloud solutions. These include “Sidecar” models, “Process- specific” migrations, as well as several flavors of Public / Private Cloud redeployments. • Driving demand is not only the power of the new Master Architecture to deliver better, cheaper and faster outcomes – and addressing the highly fragmented nature of today’s finance system deployments – but enabling the finance function to provide greater agility, flexibility and value to the business. – This is particularly relevant given the dual mandates of an evolved (and more strategic) mission for finance, and the fundamental challenges of supporting the transition to Digital Business. • At the same time, security headwinds will continue to dampen deployment scenarios for Cloud Financials – even though the highly public recent breeches at Target, JP Morgan Chase and Home Depot had nothing to do with the Cloud. Paradoxically, most Cloud providers offer superior security to all but a handful of on-premise environments. Page: 4
  5. 5. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Saugatuck Insights – Summary (1 of 3) • Changing CFO Priorities – Importance and Effectiveness: – The good news is that both Finance and IT leaders see the same priorities in the same basic order, only their emphasis differs – led by 1) effective planning, budgeting and forecasting, 2) monitoring / measuring performance, and 3) providing input for strategic decision making. – The survey response data bode ill for most current Finance systems – and for those selling or manufacturing them. Hefty gaps between the relative importance, and relative system effectiveness, among the top Finance priorities, instantly show us where the greatest opportunities for improvement lie: FP&A, BI/CPM, and strategic business input. – Outside of transaction processing, fewer than 50% of Finance and IT execs see current systems as being effective. Even transaction processing is only seen as effective by 53% of the execs. – While perceived ineffectiveness alone may not be enough to trigger replacement, it is a sign that users (and their leaders) see massive room for improvement – if and where Finance groups and leaders can be convinced of such improvement through the acquisition of better systems. • Status of Financial Management Systems: – Greater than 50% of current Financial Management systems are viable targets for replacement, with users actively evaluating options to replace (21%), or having plans to replace in 6-12 months (15%) or 12-24 months (17%). IT executives are much more bullish than Finance executives on the expected pace of migration. – Respondents from mid-sized companies (1K to 3K employees) indicate the least satisfaction AND the greatest propensity for evaluating replacement systems. This potentially results from challenges of using tools implemented when the companies were smaller and suggests a significant concentration of opportunity. Page: 5
  6. 6. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Saugatuck Insights – Summary (2 of 3) • Will Cloud Replace On-Premises Financials? – Most Finance and IT execs believe that Cloud will replace on-premises financial systems. Small and midsize companies and Aggressive adopters are already working on migrating systems today, while larger firms are more likely to be targeting deployments 12-24 months from now. Overall, IT is more positive that systems will move, while finance users have more of a wait-and- see attitude. – Saugatuck believes that the primary drivers are a combination of uncertainty and caution on behalf of companies, which serves to retard immediate efforts to upgrade systems. This is especially apparent in the larger companies, where process and existing technology both represent significant investments and also significant challenges to upgrade/change. – Despite this the footprint of existing financial software is aging. Many systems were designed for an era when businesses didn’t have to meet increasingly complicated regulatory requirements and also were not under such competitive pressure to be agile. • The Evolution of Financials Footprint: 2014-2018 – The shift from on-premises to Cloud-based financials will be more complex than experienced in early waves of adoption (e.g., CRM, HCM, Marketing). These include “Sidecar” deployments, “Process-specific” migrations, and several flavors of Public & Private Cloud redeployments. – By 2018, the on-premises footprint preference declines by more than half (58%  27%), while all other categories grow, although the Sidecar footprint grows the least (15%  18%). Sidecar implementations can probably be thought of as a complementary adjunct to core financials, as they gradually deploy process-by-process (21%), function-only (16%) or all in (14%). SPP: CFOs preferring the on-premises footprint will remain the largest of the five categories until 2020. Page: 6
  7. 7. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Saugatuck Insights – Summary (3 of 3) • Moving Financials to the Cloud: Key Concerns – Despite mounting evidence of Cloud security, data privacy and security will likely always remain the dominant concern, especially related to an organization’s financial aspects. Go-to-Market strategy and messaging should primarily focus on it as well as data & process integration. • Moving Financials to the Cloud: Timing – Long-term use of primarily Cloud-based Financials tops out at between 55% and 65% of firms over the planning horizon. The “Money” functions – Treasury, core accounting, and revenue management – are the least likely to go to Cloud, while “Managerial” functions (e.g., Planning / Forecasting, Analytics / Perf. Mgmt, Payroll and Expense Mgmt.) are the most likely to move. IT leaders see an average of ¼ to 1/3 more Cloud-based Finance systems presence and growth from 2014 through 2016 than do Finance leaders. • Statements on Financial Management Systems – Although a majority of Finance and IT execs believe their systems are easy-to-use and timely (63%), there are three powerful motivators for system replacement, upgrade or enhancement: 1) adding Big Data analytics; 2) current systems are highly fragmented; 3) too expensive to run or upgrade. At the same time, consolidations and complex regulations add to the burden of staying up-to-date. • Statements on FP&A – The data suggest a strong trend toward adoption and use of FP&A tools, which are seen as useful and (increasingly) required, and are being applied to reduce errors and inconsistencies – i.e., to address baseline Finance activity and costs. – IT leaders indicate a significantly greater favor toward FP&A tools than even Finance leaders do. Page: 7
  8. 8. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Changing CFO Priorities: Importance – Insight Summary • Survey Question: Please indicate the level of importance that each of the following priorities and responsibilities have in your organization today. • Insight Summary: – The good news is that both Finance and IT leaders see the same priorities in the same basic order; only their emphasis differs – and those differences are explainable by each party’s traditional roles and resulting perspective. The question remains: what, if anything, can or should be done to enable a shift toward more strategic priorities and improvements for Finance? Can improvements in systems themselves enable this? – As the overall patterns of importance remain very similar, it can be safely assumed that these needs and challenges of Finance leaders and organizations remain constant regardless of company size. Provider go-to-market emphasis can be tailored to address size-based differences while satisfying core needs with a standardized, core functionality. – The role-based predictability of relative Finance priorities simplifies solution and provider selection (and provider positioning and messaging) by providing a “message map” that resonates with each group having input into Finance solution/system development and selection. The bottom line is that Finance solutions still need to address a range of operationally-centric, mostly non-strategic functionality. – Despite statements regarding Finance leaders’ desire to play a more strategic business role, the primary priorities of Finance remain tactical and managerial. A critical question for both Finance leaders and for Finance systems providers is: How can/should Finance leaders, and organizations, be enabled to shift focus to more strategic needs and abilities? Page: 8
  9. 9. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Notes on the Data Source: Saugatuck Technology Inc. “Finance in the Cloud” (CFO/CIO) survey, N=317, North America (Dec. 2014) Changing CFO Priorities: Importance – Summary Saugatuck Insight: Despite statements regarding Finance leaders’ desire to play a more strategic business role, the primary priorities of Finance remain tactical and managerial. How can/should Finance leaders, and orgs, be enabled to shift focus to more strategic needs and abilities? • Non-revenue, non- strategic activities top the list. • Risk management, revenue generation, and cost avoidance share middling sentiment/ importance. • Finance priorities are mostly tactical and managerial in nature. Page: 9 35% 30% 41% 43% 38% 41% 42% 48% 39% 15% 25% 24% 25% 29% 30% 32% 30% 45% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Managing shareholder information / relations Processing transactions Drive continuous enterprise cost reduction Improve revenue growth opportunity identification /… Managing / mitigate business risk Managing compliance / internal controls Providing input for strategic decision making Monitoring / measuring performance Effective planning, budgeting and forecasting Please indicate the level of importance that each of the following priorities and responsibilities have in your organization today. (Only “Very Important” + “Extremely Important” responses shown) Very Extremely
  10. 10. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Notes on the Data Source: Saugatuck Technology Inc. “Finance in the Cloud” (CFO/CIO) survey, N=317, North America (Dec. 2014) Changing CFO Priorities: Importance – Finance vs. IT Saugatuck Insight: The good news is that both Finance and IT leaders see the same priorities in the same basic order; only their emphasis differs – and those differences are explainable by each party’s traditional roles and resulting perspective. The question remains: what, if anything, can or should be done to enable a shift toward more strategic priorities and improvements for Finance? Can improvements in systems themselves enable this? • Rankings are similar but with slightly different emphases. • Finance sees the top priorities as more important. • IT leaders tend to show some bias toward traditional IT management priorities (i.e., transaction processing, cost reduction). Page: 10 51% 52% 62% 68% 70% 70% 78% 81% 91% 51% 58% 68% 68% 66% 72% 72% 76% 79% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Managing shareholder information / relations Processing transactions Drive continuous enterprise cost reduction Improve revenue growth opportunity identification /… Managing / mitigate business risk Managing compliance / internal controls Providing input for strategic decision making Monitoring / measuring performance Effective planning, budgeting and forecasting Please indicate the level of importance that each of the following priorities and responsibilities have in your organization today. (Only “Very Important” + “Extremely Important” responses shown) IT Finance
  11. 11. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Notes on the Data Source: Saugatuck Technology Inc. “Finance in the Cloud” (CFO/CIO) survey, N=317, North America (Dec. 2014) Changing CFO Priorities: Importance – Size Saugatuck Insight: As the overall patterns of importance remain very similar, it can be safely assumed that these needs and challenges of Finance leaders and organizations remain constant regardless of company size. Provider go-to-market emphasis can be tailored to address size-based differences while satisfying core needs with a standardized, core functionality. • Top priorities remain similar across company sizes. • At and above 3K employees, the middle priorities shift significantly, with substantial drop-off from the top priorities in 3K to 10K employee size firms. • The largest firms are the most concerned with risk and cost management. Page: 11 100 - 999 Employees 1,000 - 2,999 Employees 3,000 - 10,000 Employees > 10,000 Employees Effective planning, budgeting and forecasting 86% 88% 84% 83% Monitoring / measuring performance 86% 73% 78% 87% Providing input for strategic decision making 79% 80% 69% 78% Managing compliance / internal controls 74% 75% 69% 63% Managing / mitigate business risk 74% 67% 66% 74% Improve revenue growth opportunity identification / tracking 65% 66% 70% 70% Drive continuous enterprise cost reduction 51% 63% 67% 74% Processing transactions 53% 56% 57% 48% Managing shareholder information / relations 44% 51% 56% 43% Please indicate the level of importance that each of the following priorities and responsibilities have in your organization today. (Only “Very Important” + “Extremely Important” responses shown)
  12. 12. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Notes on the Data Source: Saugatuck Technology Inc. “Finance in the Cloud” (CFO/CIO) survey, N=317, North America (Dec. 2014) Changing CFO Priorities: Importance – Title Saugatuck Insight: The role-based predictability of relative Finance priorities simplifies solution and provider selection (and provider positioning and messaging) by providing a “message map” that resonates with each group having input into Finance solution/system development and selection. The bottom line is that Finance solutions still need to address a range of operationally-centric, mostly non-strategic functionality. • We see clear, role- relevant rankings, including: – Analysts are concerned most about data – and not about risk. – Managers care most about managing & planning. – CEOs care most about next year+. Page: 12 C-level EVP, GVP, SVP GM, VP, Controller Director Manager, Supervisor Analyst Effective planning, budgeting and forecasting 92% 73% 85% 85% 75% 88% Providing input for strategic decision making 78% 82% 73% 78% 58% 75% Monitoring / measuring performance 83% 82% 86% 80% 50% 63% Improve revenue growth opportunity identif. / tracking 72% 73% 66% 68% 71% 50% Managing compliance / internal controls 73% 68% 71% 73% 79% 13% Managing / mitigate business risk 73% 73% 69% 69% 75% 0% Drive continuous enterprise cost reduction 62% 64% 64% 72% 67% 25% Processing transactions 57% 41% 49% 61% 71% 25% Managing shareholder information / relations 62% 55% 47% 47% 54% 13% Please indicate the level of importance that each of the following priorities and responsibilities have in your organization today. (Only “Very Important” + “Extremely Important” responses shown)
  13. 13. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Changing CFO Priorities: Effectiveness – Insight Summary • Survey Question: Please indicate how effective your current Financial Management System(s) are at helping your organization address each of the following priorities and responsibilities. • Insight Summary: – The survey response data bode ill for most current Finance systems – and for those selling or manufacturing them. Hefty gaps between the relative importance, and relative system effectiveness, among the top Finance priorities instantly show us where the greatest opportunities for improvement lie: FP&A, BI/CPM, and strategic business input. – Even the smallest firms (typically having the least-complex organizations and models) show substantial need for Finance system improvement. The overall view from both Finance and IT is that there is substantial room for improvement in the ability of systems to enable an support what Finance needs to accomplish. – Outside of transaction processing, fewer than 50% of participants see their current systems as being effective. Even transaction processing is only seen as effective by 53% of survey takers. – While perceived ineffectiveness alone may not be enough to trigger replacement, it is a sign that users (and their leaders) see massive room for improvement – if and where Finance groups and leaders can be convinced of such improvement through the acquisition of better systems. – The go-to-market challenge for solution developers and providers: Qualifying or quantifying the likely scope of Finance improvement without over-emphasizing Finance’s existing less-than- adequate performance. – Addressing this needs to emphasize how Finance can improve its own value and performance – without emphasizing that Finance may not be performing well or providing enough value. Vendors need to focus on inadequate systems and technology without opening up their own offerings, or previous customer IT practices, to criticism. Page: 13
  14. 14. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Notes on the Data Source: Saugatuck Technology Inc. “Finance in the Cloud” (CFO/CIO) survey, N=317, North America (Dec. 2014) Changing CFO Priorities: Effectiveness – Summary Saugatuck Insight: The survey response data bode ill for most current systems - and for those selling or manufacturing them. While perceived ineffectiveness alone may not be enough to trigger replacement, it is a sign that users (and their leaders) see massive room for improvement – if and where Finance groups and leaders can be convinced of such improvement through the acquisition of better systems. • Outside of transaction processing, < 50% of participants see their current systems as being effective. • Even transaction processing is only seen as Very or Extremely effective by 53% of Finance system users and leaders. Page: 14 33% 33% 35% 36% 37% 41% 44% 46% 53% 0% 20% 40% 60% Providing input for strategic decision making Drive continuous enterprise cost reduction Improve revenue growth opportunity identification / tracking Managing shareholder information / relations Managing / mitigate business risk Effective planning, budgeting and forecasting Monitoring / measuring performance Managing compliance / internal controls Processing transactions Please indicate how effective your current Financial Management System(s) are at helping your organization address each of the following priorities and responsibilities. (Only “Very Effective” + “Extremely Effective” responses shown)
  15. 15. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Notes on the Data Source: Saugatuck Technology Inc. “Finance in the Cloud” (CFO/CIO) survey, N=317, North America (Dec. 2014) Changing CFO Priorities: Importance vs. Effectiveness Saugatuck Insight: Hefty gaps between the relative importance, and relative system effectiveness, among the top Finance priorities instantly show us where the greatest opportunities for improvement lie: FP&A, BI/CPM, and strategic business input. The go-to-market challenge for solution developers and providers: Qualifying or quantifying the likely scope of Finance improvement without over-emphasizing Finance’s existing less-than-adequate performance. • The most important priorities show the greatest lack of overall system effectiveness. • These can be considered as “target-rich environments” for Finance systems providers. Page: 15 36% 53% 33% 35% 37% 46% 33% 44% 41% 50% 55% 64% 68% 68% 70% 74% 78% 84% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Managing shareholder information / relations Processing transactions Drive continuous enterprise cost reduction Improve revenue growth opportunity… Managing / mitigate business risk Managing compliance / internal controls Providing input for strategic decision making Monitoring / measuring performance Effective planning, budgeting and forecasting Please indicate how important and effective your current Financial Management System(s) are at helping your organization address each of the following priorities and responsibilities. (Only “Very Effective” + “Extremely Effective” responses shown) Importance Effectiveness
  16. 16. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Notes on the Data Source: Saugatuck Technology Inc. “Finance in the Cloud” (CFO/CIO) survey, N=317, North America (Dec. 2014) Changing CFO Priorities: Effectiveness – Finance vs. IT Saugatuck Insight: Both Finance and IT agree there is substantial room for improvement in the ability of systems to enable and support Finance priorities. Addressing this needs to emphasize how Finance can improve its own value and performance – without emphasizing that Finance may not be performing well, or providing enough value. Vendors need to focus on inadequate systems and technology without opening up their own offerings, or previous customer IT practices, to criticism. • IT leaders show more faith in existing systems – but also mirror Finance’s dissatisfaction with those systems’ effectiveness. • Systems pertaining to strategic business and Finance improvement are the least effective. Page: 16 28% 29% 31% 31% 34% 38% 41% 46% 57% 39% 38% 40% 45% 38% 45% 48% 46% 49% 0% 20% 40% 60% Drive continuous enterprise cost reduction Providing input for strategic decision making Improve revenue growth opportunity… Managing / mitigate business risk Managing shareholder information / relations Effective planning, budgeting and forecasting Monitoring / measuring performance Managing compliance / internal controls Processing transactions Please indicate how effective your current Financial Management System(s) are at helping your organization address each of the following priorities and responsibilities. (Only “Very Effective” + “Extremely Effective” responses shown) IT Finance
  17. 17. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Notes on the Data Source: Saugatuck Technology Inc. “Finance in the Cloud” (CFO/CIO) survey, N=317, North America (Dec. 2014) Changing CFO Priorities: Effectiveness – Size Saugatuck Insight: While we see the same basic pattern of relative ineffectiveness regardless of size, the degrees of effect- iveness change as companies grow. Compliance / internal controls seem to go through improvement-decline-improvement cycles based on size; performance monitoring and management improves as companies get larger. The bottom line? Even the smallest firms (typically having the least-complex orgs and models) show substantial need for Finance system improvement. • The smallest firms indicate the most effectiveness in immediate “getting the money into the system” – but the least effectiveness of Finance systems overall. • NOTE: Only “Very Effective” + “Extremely Effective” responses shown. Page: 17 100 - 999 Employees 1,000 - 2,999 Employees 3,000 - 10,000 Employees > 10,000 Employees Processing transactions 67% 55% 48% 50% Managing compliance / internal controls 40% 49% 44% 52% Monitoring / measuring performance 42% 45% 43% 52% Effective planning, budgeting and forecasting 35% 44% 42% 39% Managing / mitigate business risk 33% 36% 40% 37% Managing shareholder information / relations 35% 37% 37% 33% Improve revenue growth opportunity identification / tracking 26% 44% 32% 35% Providing input for strategic decision making 30% 35% 32% 37% Drive continuous enterprise cost reduction 26% 35% 34% 35% Please indicate how effective your current Financial Management System(s) are at helping your organization address each of the following priorities and responsibilities. (Only “Very Effective” + “Extremely Effective” responses
  18. 18. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Status of Financial Management Systems – Insight Summary • Survey Question: Please select the answer that best describes the status of your current Financial Management System(s): • Insight Summary: – Greater than 50% of current Financial Management systems are viable targets for replacement, with users actively evaluating options to replace (21%), or having plans to replace in 6-12 months (15%) or 12-24 months (17%). – IT executives are much more bullish than Finance executives on the expected pace of migration. Differences in perceptions between IT and Finance execs potentially indicate differences in evaluation criteria. For example, IT execs are likely more concerned with operational costs, support staffing, etc., whereas Financial execs are likely more concerned with richness of functionality and system availability. – Respondents from mid-sized companies (1K to 3K employees) indicate the least satisfaction AND the greatest propensity for evaluating replacement systems. This potentially results from challenges of using tools implemented when the companies were smaller and suggests a significant concentration of opportunity. – Two industry segments (Bus./Prof. Svcs, and CPG/Food & Bev.) represent a concentrated opportunity. Page: 18
  19. 19. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Notes on the Data Source: Saugatuck Technology Inc. “Finance in the Cloud” (CFO/CIO) survey, N=317, North America (Dec. 2014) Status of Financial Management Systems – Summary Saugatuck Insight: Only 23% of respondents indicated satisfaction with current Financial Mgmt systems. Since this is 6 percentage points higher than those who had recently replaced their systems, we believe this may actually result from a lack of recent focus and indicate additional opportunity for replacement systems. In total this would yield more than 50% of current systems are potential targets for upgrade. • 53% of respondents (see red box) indicated being unhappy with current Financial Mgmt systems AND have budget to replace them. • Only 5% of respondents indicated dissatisfaction but lack budget to replace them. Page: 19 5% 15% 17% 21% 17% 23% We are unhappy with the system but have no budget to replace We are planning to replace the system (next 6- 12 months) We’re planning to replace the system (next 12-24 months) We’re currently evaluating options to replace the system We recently upgraded/replaced the system We’re happy with the system; no changes planned 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Please select the answer that best describes the status of your current Financial Management System(s):
  20. 20. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Notes on the Data Source: Saugatuck Technology Inc. “Finance in the Cloud” (CFO/CIO) survey, N=317, North America (Dec. 2014) Status of Financial Management Systems – Finance vs. IT Saugatuck Insight: Except for the lowest ranked response (“unhappy but no budget”), Finance execs indicated they are more satisfied than IT execs with their current systems. Differences in perceptions between IT and Finance potentially indicate differences in evaluation criteria. For example, IT execs are likely more concerned with operational costs, support staffing, etc., whereas Financial execs are likely more concerned with richness of functionality and system availability. • Difference in IT vs Finance response for “planning to replace in 6-12 months” suggests lack of coordination between the two camps. Page: 20 6% 10% 14% 19% 20% 28% 4% 20% 20% 23% 15% 17% 0% 20% 40% We are unhappy with the system but have no budget to replace We are planning to replace the system (next 6-12 months) We’re planning to replace the system (next 12-24 months) We’re currently evaluating options to replace the system We recently upgraded/replaced the system We’re happy with the system; no changes planned Please select the answer that best describes the status of your current Financial Management System(s): IT Finance
  21. 21. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Notes on the Data Source: Saugatuck Technology Inc. “Finance in the Cloud” (CFO/CIO) survey, N=317, North America (Dec. 2014) Status of Financial Management Systems – Size Saugatuck Insight: Respondents from mid-sized companies (1K to 3K employees) indicate the least satisfaction AND the greatest propensity for evaluating replacement systems. This potentially results from challenges of using tools implemented when the companies were smaller and suggests a significant concentration of opportunity. • Respondents from mid-sized companies (1K to 3K employees) indicate the least satisfaction with their Financial Mgmt systems Page: 21 100 - 999 Employees 1,000 - 2,999 Employees 3,000 - 10,000 Employees > 10,000 Employees We are unhappy with the system but have no budget to replace 12% 6% 4% 2% We are planning to replace the system (next 6-12 months) 9% 16% 16% 13% We’re planning to replace the system (next 12-24 months) 12% 19% 19% 15% We’re currently evaluating options to replace the system 19% 26% 19% 20% We recently upgraded/replaced the system 23% 18% 16% 17% We’re happy with the system; no changes planned 23% 16% 26% 28% Please select the answer that best describes the status of your current Financial Management System(s):
  22. 22. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Notes on the Data Source: Saugatuck Technology Inc. “Finance in the Cloud” (CFO/CIO) survey, N=317, North America (Dec. 2014) Status of Financial Management Systems – Industry Saugatuck Insight: Respondents from two industries (Bus./Prof. Svcs, and CPG/Food & Bev.) indicated significantly lower overall satisfaction with current Financial Mgmt systems and indicates high incidence (52% & 73% respectively) of evaluating or planning a replacement system (see red rectangle). This suggests a concentrated opportunity in these industry market segments. • With exception of two industry segments (Bus./Prof. Svcs, and CPG/Food & Bev.) respondents expressed fairly consistent satisfaction with existing Financial Mgmt systems Page: 22 Bus./ Prof. Svcs CPG / Food & Bev Energy / Utlty / Chem Fin Svcs / Ins. / Bank Health / Pharm. / Life Sci Tech. / Telco/ Media / Ent. Manu / Logistics / Retail Pub Sector / Govt We are unhappy with the system but have no budget to replace 7% 7% 0% 5% 7% 2% 4% 7% We are planning to replace the system (next 6-12 months) 11% 7% 9% 11% 13% 26% 25% 0% We’re planning to replace the system (next 12-24 months) 19% 33% 22% 16% 18% 14% 12% 14% We’re currently evaluating options to replace the system 22% 33% 26% 31% 22% 14% 21% 7% We recently upgraded/replaced the system 26% 13% 22% 16% 9% 23% 13% 36% We’re happy with the system; no changes planned 15% 7% 22% 20% 31% 21% 25% 36% Please select the answer that best describes the status of your current Financial Management System(s):
  23. 23. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Will Cloud Replace On-Premises Financials? – Insight Summary • Survey Question: Do you believe Cloud / SaaS Financial Management Systems will eventually replace on-premise financials? • Insight Summary: – Almost all Finance and IT executives feel that Cloud is going to replace on-premises financial systems. Overall, IT responses are the most positive on the Cloud with only 6% indicating that they do not expect systems to move the Cloud. Self-identified Conservative technology adopters are at the extreme end of the spectrum, where 18% believe Financial software will always remain on-premises. – The timing for deployment is spread out over the next 24 months. Smaller companies and Aggressive adopters are already working on migrating systems today, while larger companies are more likely to be targeting deployments 12-24 months from now. Overall, IT users are more positive that systems will move, while finance users are more likely to adopt a wait-and-see attitude. – Saugatuck believes that the primary drivers for these responses are a combination of uncertainty and caution on behalf of companies, which serves to retard immediate efforts to upgrade systems. This is especially apparent in the larger companies where process and existing technology both represent significant investments and also significant challenges to upgrade/change. – Despite this, the footprint of existing financial software is aging. Many systems were designed for an era when businesses didn’t have to meet the increasingly complicated regulatory requirements and also were not under such competitive pressure to be agile. – This aging footprint ultimately must give way to new systems, designed from the ground up to take into account the requirements of businesses to incorporate rapid restructurings, digital products and services, and increasing scale of data. Page: 23
  24. 24. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Will Cloud Replace On-Premises Financials? – Summary Saugatuck Insight: Despite hesitation on moving to the Cloud, very few respondents (9%) believe that Financial Management will remain on-premises into the foreseeable future. The bulk of responses that indicate either 2 years away, or “don’t know” are strong indicators that this category of applications is likely to remain very hybridized in the near future. Where Financial management moves to the Cloud sooner, it is likely to be in a supplementary role to existing systems. Page: 24 16% 18% 29% 24% 9% 0% 20% 40% Yes, it’s happening today Yes, it will happen within the next 6-12 months Yes, but it will happen over the next 12-24 months Don't really know, only time will tell... No, I don’t believe Financial Management will ever move to to the Cloud Do you believe Cloud / SaaS Financial Management Systems will eventually replace on-premise financials? Source: Saugatuck Technology Inc. “Finance in the Cloud” (CFO/CIO) survey, N=317, North America (Dec. 2014)
  25. 25. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Notes on the Data Source: Saugatuck Technology Inc. “Finance in the Cloud” (CFO/CIO) survey, N=317, North America (Dec. 2014) Will Cloud Replace On-Premises Financials? – Finance vs. IT Saugatuck Insight: 71% of IT respondents believe that Financials will be in the cloud within the next 24 months, weighted toward the end of that time-frame (See Slide 19). More work needs to demonstrate to Finance users of the need to upgrade/migrate their financial solutions by focusing on business outcomes. IT buyers can more easily justify the operation improvements garnered by leveraging the SaaS model, and will focus less on specific areas of business enablement. • Overall, IT sees more movement move toward SaaS than Finance. • IT is less unsure about when this will happen. • IT is also less likely to believe that this transition is already happening today. • Finance Users either believe that more of this is happening today, or that it is much further away. Page: 25 19% 11% 26% 29% 13% 13% 26% 32% 20% 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Yes, it’s happening today Yes, it will happen within the next 6-12 months Yes, but it will happen over the next 12-24 months Don't really know, only time will tell... No, I don’t believe Financial Management will ever move to the Cloud Do you believe Cloud / SaaS Financial Management Systems will eventually replace on-premise financials? IT Finance
  26. 26. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Notes on the Data Source: Saugatuck Technology Inc. “Finance in the Cloud” (CFO/CIO) survey, N=317, North America (Dec. 2014) Will Cloud Replace On-Premises Financials? – Size Saugatuck Insight: Small companies are the most active in upgrading systems today, likely due to less existing software and fewer users to train; Cloud applications also allow them to stretch resources. Large enterprises may be beginning the process, but have complex integration and deployment challenges, especially as they rationalize hybrid Cloud strategies. The move to cloud is more a question of timing than anything else. • Larger companies with more than 3,000 employees indicate that the bulk of their efforts are unlikely to happen immediately, but will begin to ramp up over the next year, with the bulk coming 12-24 months away. • Smaller Companies are much more able to take advantage of the Cloud now. Page: 26 100 - 999 Employees 1,000 - 2,999 Employees 3,000 - 10,000 Employees > 10,000 Employees Yes, it’s happening today 35% 11% 15% 9% Yes, it will happen within the next 6-12 months 14% 22% 19% 13% Yes, but it will happen over the next 12-24 months 23% 33% 25% 39% Don't really know, only time will tell... 19% 27% 25% 26% No, I don’t believe Financial Management will ever move to the Cloud 7% 7% 13% 7% Do you believe Cloud / SaaS Financial Management Systems will eventually replace on- premise financials?
  27. 27. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Notes on the Data Source: Saugatuck Technology Inc. “Finance in the Cloud” (CFO/CIO) survey, N=317, North America (Dec. 2014) Will Cloud Replace On-Premises Financials? – Adoption Profile Saugatuck Insight: The story here is not that adoption is happening more slowly for conservative adopters, but that it is happening. Relatively few users expect the systems to stay on-premises forever, so again, the timing is everything. Conservative adopters want more mileage out of their existing systems and are adopting a wait-and-see attitude toward the evolution of their applications. Aggressive adopters have already began replacing systems in search of business advantage. • Conservative adopters are less likely to deploy Cloud in the near term. • They do indicate that these systems will eventually move to the Cloud, though. • Conservative adopters also indicate a much higher rate of believing that the Cloud may never be right for Financial systems. Page: 27 Aggressive Mainstream Conservative Yes, it’s happening today 24% 16% 12% Yes, it will happen within the next 6-12 months 28% 22% 6% Yes, but it will happen over the next 12-24 months 24% 28% 34% Don't really know, only time will tell... 12% 26% 31% No, I don’t believe Financial Management will ever move to the Cloud 10% 6% 18% Do you believe Cloud / SaaS Financial Management Systems will eventually replace on- premise financials?
  28. 28. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Evolution of Financials Footprint 2014-2018 – Insight Summary • Survey Question: How would you best describe your current Financial Management System(s) footprint, as well as your vision for what it will look like in 2016 and 2018? • Insight Summary: – Over a four year period, the on-premises footprint preference declines by more than half (58%  27%), while all other categories grow, although the Sidecar footprint grows the least (15%  18%). Sidecar implementations can probably be thought of as a complementary adjunct to core financials, as they gradually deploy process by process (21%), function-only (16%) or all in (14%). SPP: CFOs preferring the on-premises footprint will remain the largest of the five categories until 2020. – IT takes a more aggressive view of Cloud migration than Finance, both in the general arc through 2018 and in several specific instances. Examples include Process-specific (28% v 14%) in 2016 and Functionally Cloud-based (20% v 12%) in 2018. IT’s view very likely concerns the technology challenges of migration in strongly preferring Process-specific in 2016 and the architectural and security advantages of a Functionally Cloud-based footprint in 2018. – While there is a clear correlation between size and on-premises preference in 2014, by 2018 that levels out for the most part, except for the 1000-2,999 which even in 2018 has a 33% preference for On-premises. Another way to look at it is to view the Very Small (100-999) as distinct in showing a steeper decline in On-premises preference and a sharper rise in Fully Redeployed (12%-16%-26%) than other segments. By 2018, all sizes and footprints show double digits (11- 33%). Page: 28
  29. 29. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Evolution of Financials Footprint 2014-2018 – Question Detail • How would you best describe your current Financial Management System(s) footprint, as well as your vision for what it will look like in 2016 and 2018? • Please select from one of the following five descriptive profiles (for each year): – On-premises Completely: All of our core Financial Management System(s) are on-premises. This includes our core accounting systems, financial planning / forecasting / budgeting systems, as well as our performance management and advanced analytics / BI capabilities. – Sidecar Approach: We plan to keep our core Financial Management System(s) on-premises but are standing up new capabilities in the Cloud that help with our consolidations, financial planning / forecasting / budgeting, and advanced analytic requirements. – Process-Specific Migration to Cloud: We are in the middle of a process-by-process migration of our Financial Management System(s) to the Cloud, assessing each financial process as to whether it makes sense to leave it on-premises, deploy in a hybrid model, or move it to the Cloud. – Functionally Cloud-based: On a step-by-step basis, we will be moving all of our financial processes to the Cloud, but we are going to leave our financial data on-premises or in a private Cloud. – Fully Deployed to Cloud: We have or will be moving all of our Financial System(s) and data to the Cloud. This includes our core accounting systems, financial planning / forecasting / budgeting systems, as well as our performance management and advanced analytics / BI capabilities. Page: 29
  30. 30. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Notes on the Data Source: Saugatuck Technology Inc. “Finance in the Cloud” (CFO/CIO) survey, N=317, North America (Dec. 2014) Evolution of Financials Footprint 2014-2018 – Summary Saugatuck Insight: By 2018, the on-premises footprint preference declines by more than half (58%  27%), while all other categories grow, although the Sidecar footprint grows the least (15%  18%). Sidecar implementations can probably be thought of as a complementary adjunct to core financials, as they gradually deploy process by process (21%), function-only (16%) or all in (14%). SPP: CFOs preferring the on-premises footprint will remain the largest of the five categories until 2020. • On premises drops from 58% to 36% to 27% through 2018. • Both Sidecar (15- 18%) and Process- Specific (13-21%) increase in 2016 and remain at that level through 2018. • Both Functionally Cloud-based and Fully Redeployed begin at 5% in 2014 and triple by 2018 (16% and 14%, respectively). Page: 30 5% 8% 14%5% 13% 16% 13% 21% 21% 15% 18% 18% 58% 36% 27% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2014 2016 2018 How would you best describe your current Financial Management System(s) footprint, as well as your vision for what it will look like in 2016 and 2018? On-premises Completely Sidecar Approach Process-Specific Migration to Cloud Functionally Cloud-based Fully Redeployed to Cloud
  31. 31. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Notes on the Data Source: Saugatuck Technology Inc. “Finance in the Cloud” (CFO/CIO) survey, N=317, North America (Dec. 2014) Evolution of Financials Footprint 2014-2018 – Finance vs. IT Saugatuck Insight: IT takes a more aggressive view of Cloud migration than Finance, both in the general arc through 2018 and in several specific instances. Examples include Process-specific (28% v 14%) in 2016 and Functionally Cloud-based (20% v 12%) in 2018. IT’s view very likely concerns the technology challenges of migration in strongly preferring Process- specific in 2016 and the architectural and security advantages of a Functionally Cloud-based footprint in 2018. • Both Finance and IT show a similar declining preference for the On-premises footprint, but IT declines a bit more steeply thru 2018. • The largest gap between Finance and IT occurs in the 2016 in re Process- specific (28% v 14%) • By 2018 Finance and It are aligned but for the Functionally Cloud-based (20% v 12%) preferred by IT. Page: 31 4% 5% 8% 8% 13% 15%3% 8% 11% 16% 12% 20% 13% 12% 14% 28% 22% 20% 14% 15% 20% 17% 18% 18% 60% 57% 43% 30% 29% 25% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Finance IT Finance IT Finance IT 2014 2016 2018 How would you best describe your current Financial Management System(s) footprint, as well as your vision for what it will look like in 2016 and 2018? On-premises Completely Sidecar Approach Process-Specific Migration to Cloud Functionally Cloud-based Fully Redeployed to Cloud
  32. 32. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Notes on the Data Source: Saugatuck Technology Inc. “Finance in the Cloud” (CFO/CIO) survey, N=317, North America (Dec. 2014) Evolution of Financials Footprint 2014-2018 – Size Saugatuck Insight: While there is a clear correlation between size and on-premises preference in 2014 (see Notes), by 2018 that levels out for the most part, except for 1,000-2,999 which even in 2018 has a 33% preference for on-premises. Another way to look at it is to view Small (100-999) as distinct in showing a steeper decline in on-premises preference and a sharper rise in Fully Redeployed (12%-16%-26%) than other segments. By 2018 all sizes and footprints show double digits (11-33%). • in 2014 Smaller (100-2,999) organizations (60% and 69%) strongly prefer On-premises versus Midsize (3,000-10,000) organizations (58%) and Large (>10,000) organizations (41%). • By 2018, all sizes prefer On-premises between 21-33% and the Very Small (100-999) show the greatest preference for all-in to the Cloud Page: 32 2014 2016 2018 On-premises Completely SidecarApproach Process-Specific MigrationtoCloud FunctionallyCloud- based FullyRedeployedto Cloud On-premises Completely SidecarApproach Process-Specific MigrationtoCloud FunctionallyCloud- based FullyRedeployedto Cloud On-premises Completely SidecarApproach Process-Specific MigrationtoCloud FunctionallyCloud- based FullyRedeployedto Cloud 100 - 999 Employees 60% 9% 14% 2% 12% 40% 16% 19% 5% 16% 21% 16% 21% 12% 26% 1,000 - 2,999 Employees 69% 12% 13% 1% 1% 40% 17% 20% 19% 1% 33% 16% 19% 15% 15% 3,000 - 10,000 Employees 58% 16% 8% 9% 6% 34% 20% 23% 11% 8% 27% 20% 23% 16% 11% > 10,000 Employees 41% 22% 20% 7% 2% 30% 20% 22% 13% 11% 24% 20% 17% 22% 11% How would you best describe your current Financial Management System(s) footprint, as well as your vision for what it will look like in 2016 and 2018?
  33. 33. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Moving Financials to the Cloud: Key Concerns – Insight Summary • Survey Question: Of the following, please rank the top three (3) most important concerns that you have with moving Financial Management Systems to the Cloud. • Insight Summary: – Despite mounting evidence of Cloud security, data privacy and security will likely always remain the dominant concern, especially related to an organization’s financial aspects. Go-to-Market strategy and messaging should primarily focus on it as well as data & process integration, as it continues to be a key concern. – IT respondents indicated higher rankings for concerns in areas typically associated with IT with “compliance” being highlighted for targeted marketing. – Respondents from mid-sized companies (1K to 3K employees) indicated a requirement for a more targeted Go-to-Market messaging. Page: 33
  34. 34. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Notes on the Data Source: Saugatuck Technology Inc. “Finance in the Cloud” (CFO/CIO) survey, N=317, North America (Dec. 2014) Moving Financials to the Cloud: Key Concerns – Summary Saugatuck Insight: Despite mounting evidence of Cloud security, data privacy and security will likely always remain the dominant concern, especially related to an organization’s financial aspects. Go-to-Market strategy and messaging should primarily focus on both of the top two groups of concerns, as data and process integration continues to be a key concern. • Responses appear to reasonably split into three logical groupings of concerns (see red lines delineating the groups). Page: 34 21% 22% 22% 27% 30% 35% 56% 74% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% May not keep pace with changes in our industry Will not have ability to feed our company’s financial dashboards Will require extensive training for financial users Won’t be fully compliant with key regulations Won’t meet our performance requirements Our company requires customization not offered by the Cloud May be difficult to integrate with application systems Data privacy / data security Of the following, please rank the top three (3) most important concerns that you have with moving Financial Management Systems to the Cloud.
  35. 35. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Notes on the Data Source: Saugatuck Technology Inc. “Finance in the Cloud” (CFO/CIO) survey, N=317, North America (Dec. 2014) Moving Financials to the Cloud: Key Concerns – Finance vs. IT Saugatuck Insight: IT respondents indicated higher rankings for concerns in areas typically associated with IT (i.e., customization, performance, feeding dashboards, and compliance). The significantly higher concern about “compliance” suggests a targeted marketing approach focusing on this area. • Except for the lowest ranked concern (“compliance with key regulations”) there is reasonable alignment between the perspectives of IT and Finance respondents. Page: 35 19% 21% 23% 26% 29% 33% 59% 76% 35% 23% 19% 19% 32% 38% 55% 73% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Won’t be fully compliant with key regulations Will not have ability to feed our company’s financial dashboards May not keep pace with changes in our industry Will require extensive training for financial users Won’t meet our performance requirements Our company requires customization not offered by the Cloud May be difficult to integrate with application systems Data privacy / data security Of the following, please rank the top three (3) most important concerns that you have with moving Financial Management Systems to the Cloud. IT Finance
  36. 36. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Notes on the Data Source: Saugatuck Technology Inc. “Finance in the Cloud” (CFO/CIO) survey, N=317, North America (Dec. 2014) Moving Financials to the Cloud: Key Concerns – Size Saugatuck Insight: Respondents from all sized companies indicated similar rankings for concerns. Respondents from mid- sized companies (1K to 3K employees) indicated the broadest range of rankings for concerns, suggesting that this market segment requires a more targeted Go-to-Market messaging. • Respondents from mid-sized companies (1K to 3K employees) ranked concern about data privacy/security significantly higher than respondents from other sized companies. Page: 36 100 - 999 Employees 1,000 - 2,999 Employees 3,000 - 10,000 Employees > 10,000 Employees Data privacy / data security 67% 81% 72% 76% May be difficult to integrate with application systems 63% 54% 59% 52% Our company requires customization not offered by the Cloud 37% 37% 33% 41% Won’t meet our performance requirements 30% 34% 29% 24% Won’t be fully compliant with key regulations 30% 21% 28% 30% Will require extensive training for financial users 23% 22% 24% 17% Will not have ability to feed our company’s financial dashboards 19% 20% 25% 20% May not keep pace with changes in our industry 14% 19% 22% 26% Of the following, please rank the top three (3) most important concerns that you have with moving Financial Management Systems to the Cloud
  37. 37. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Moving Financials to the Cloud: Timing – Insight Summary • Survey Question: Please indicate when each of the following applications or systems are expected to be (primarily) Cloud-based in your enterprise. • Insight Summary: – Long-term use of primarily Cloud-based Financials tops out at between 55% and 65% of firms over the planning horizon. – “Money” functions – Treasury, core accounting, and revenue management – are the least likely to go to Cloud, while Managerial functions are the most likely to go to Cloud (e.g., Planning / Forecasting, Analytics / Performance Management, Payroll and Expense Mgmt.) – IT leaders see an average of ¼ to 1/3 more Cloud-based Finance systems presence and growth from 2014 through 2016 than do Finance leaders. – As has been the case throughout Saugatuck's Cloud business software research history: The closer we get to the money functions, the less likely we are to involve Cloud. That doesn’t mean No Cloud at all; it just means the systems upon which the enterprise relies to make and manage money are the least likely to be found in Cloud. Rightly or wrongly, this is mainly due to traditional culture and practices regarding control over money and related core data. – A continuing trend among participants in Saugatuck’s research on Cloud-based business management solutions, regardless of enterprise business group or area of responsibility, is that adoption patterns and actions are strongest or more expected one to two years in the future. A lack of enterprise- or even department-wide Cloud strategy and planning means that the growing adoption - happening right now throughout the enterprise - is rarely noticed until after the fact. Page: 37
  38. 38. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Notes on the Data Source: Saugatuck Technology Inc. “Finance in the Cloud” (CFO/CIO) survey, N=317, North America (Dec. 2014) Moving Financials to the Cloud: Timing – Summary Saugatuck Insight: As has been the case throughout Saugatuck's Cloud business software research history, the closer we get to the money functions, the less likely we are to involve Cloud. That doesn’t mean No Cloud at all; it just means the systems upon which the enterprise relies to make and manage money are the least likely to be found in Cloud. Rightly or wrongly, this is mainly due to traditional culture and practices regarding control over money and related core data. • Long-term use of primarily Cloud- based Financials tops out at between 55% and 65% of firms. • “Money” functions – Treasury, core accounting, and revenue management – are the least likely to go to Cloud. • Managerial functions are the most likely to go to Cloud. Page: 38 6% 7% 12% 19% 8% 6% 6% 7% 8% 4% 6% 10% 7% 4% 3% 5% 5% 7% 15% 16% 17% 17% 20% 15% 14% 10% 19% 17% 21% 15% 10% 21% 20% 20% 17% 19% 15% 12% 12% 12% 13% 12% 15% 14% 11% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Core Accounting Procurement Expense Mgmt. Payroll Analytics / Perform. Mgmt Revenue Mgmt. Asset Mgmt. Treasury Mgmt. Planning / Forecasting Please indicate when each of the following applications or systems are expected to be (primarily) Cloud-based in your enterprise Already Primarily in Cloud By YE 2014 By YE 2015 By YE 2016 By YE 2017+
  39. 39. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Moving Financials to the Cloud: Timing – IT vs. Finance Saugatuck Insight: IT leaders see an average of ¼ to 1/3 more Cloud-based Finance systems presence and growth from 2014 through 2016 than do Finance leaders. We see two factors at work in this: (1) IT leaders external to the Finance organization likely have a more complete view of all Finance-related systems, and (2) IT leaders tend to be more positive regarding Cloud adoption and use within the enterprise, frequently acting as Cloud evangelists to business units like Finance. Page: 39 Please indicate when each of the following applications or systems are expected to be (primarily) Cloud-based in your enterprise Source: Saugatuck Technology Inc. “Finance in the Cloud” (CFO/CIO) survey, N=317, North America (Dec. 2014)
  40. 40. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Notes on the Data Source: Saugatuck Technology Inc. “Finance in the Cloud” (CFO/CIO) survey, N=317, North America (Dec. 2014) Moving Financials to the Cloud: Timing – Company Size Number of Employees Financial Mgmt Application/System Timeframes 100 - 999 1,000 - 2,999 3,000 - 10,000 > 10,000 Core Accounting (e.g., GL, AR/AP) Thru 2015 16% 8% 11% 7% 2016-2017 28% 33% 35% 26% Beyond 2017 21% 16% 13% 20% Procurement Thru 2015 19% 9% 13% 20% 2016-2017 37% 39% 37% 33% Beyond 2017 2% 17% 14% 9% Expense Management Thru 2015 26% 18% 19% 28% 2016-2017 37% 34% 32% 24% Beyond 2017 5% 15% 13% 11% Payroll Thru 2015 47% 18% 22% 28% 2016-2017 16% 35% 29% 17% Beyond 2017 12% 12% 12% 15% Data Analytics / Performance Management Thru 2015 21% 8% 13% 9% 2016-2017 40% 45% 39% 39% Beyond 2017 5% 12% 16% 15% Revenue Management Thru 2015 12% 6% 11% 7% 2016-2017 40% 40% 29% 33% Beyond 2017 7% 11% 14% 15% Asset Management Thru 2015 16% 10% 11% 9% 2016-2017 35% 37% 33% 24% Beyond 2017 7% 16% 15% 22% Treasury Management Thru 2015 12% 13% 12% 11% 2016-2017 33% 31% 25% 20% Beyond 2017 12% 8% 18% 17% Saugatuck Insight: A continuing trend in Saugatuck’s research on Cloud-based business management solutions, regardless of enterprise business group or area of responsibility, is that adoption patterns and actions are strongest or more expected one-to-two years in the future. A lack of enterprise-wide or even department-wide Cloud strategy and planning means that the growing adoption - happening right now throughout the enterprise - is rarely noticed until after the fact. • The greatest growth in the use of Cloud- based Finance apps is expected in the 2016-’17 timeframe (as shown in red %). • A majority of survey participants do not expect any Finance app category to be mostly Cloud until beyond 2017. Page: 40 Please indicate when each of the following applications or systems are expected to be (primarily) Cloud-based in your enterprise
  41. 41. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Statements on Financial Management Systems – Insight Summary • Survey Question: Please rate each of the following statements about your Finance Management System(s) – Agree and Strongly Agree Shown. • Insight Summary: – Although a significant majority of Finance and IT execs believe their systems are easy-to-use and timely (63%), there are 3 powerful motivators for system replacement, upgrade or enhancement: 1) adding Big Data analytics; 2) current systems are highly fragmented; 3) they are too expensive to run or upgrade. At the same time, consolidations and complex regulations add to the burden of staying functionally up-to-date. Yet, despite these challenges, urgency has not yet been perceived or established. – From an operational point of view, the greatest challenge to IT is consolidating subsidiaries, although Finance must not be aware of the challenges IT has to deal with because it is one of their least concerns. It may be a point of tension consequently. On the competitive side of Finance, enhancing financial systems with Big Data analytics is something both IT and Finance agree strongly about, although IT is significantly more positive. Analytics is clearly a motivator. – If we assume the very small enterprise (100-999) is a special case and focus on the other three size segments, it is easy to see that Big Data analytics is a hot button across the board, consolidation is a shared challenge and new regulations have universally complicated financial reporting. Yet as organizations grow in size there is a decline in agreement that systems are easy-to-use and timely. The very small enterprise is the least satisfied with its financial systems and a clear opportunity. Page: 41
  42. 42. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Notes on the Data Source: Saugatuck Technology Inc. “Finance in the Cloud” (CFO/CIO) survey, N=317, North America (Dec. 2014) Statements on Financial Management Systems – Summary Saugatuck Insight: Although a significant majority believe their systems are easy-to-use and timely (63%), there are 3 powerful motivators for system replacement, upgrade or enhancement: 1) adding Big Data analytics 2) current systems are highly fragmented, 3) too expensive to run or upgrade. At the same time, consolidations and complex regulations add to the burden of staying functionally up-to-date. Yet, despite these challenges, urgency has not yet been perceived or established. • A significant majority of respondents believe their systems are easy-to-use and timely (63%). • Nevertheless, an ever greater number (71%) value the enhancement of Big Data analytics. • Two negatives were expressed: – Highly-fragmented systems (54%) and – Too expensive to run or upgrade systems (48%). Page: 42 48% 54% 58% 59% 63% 64% 71% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Our core Financial system is too expensive to run and/or to upgrade. Our Financial systems are highly fragmented with too many disparate interfaces btw them. Our Financial systems easily support rapid, flexible and timely changes in the business. Consolidating subsidiaries is a major challenge today Our Financial systems provide an easy-to-use and timely "single version of the truth". New regulatory requirements have significantly complicated our financial reporting. We believe our financial systems would be enhanced by Big Data analytics. Please rate each of the following statements about your Finance Management System(s) – Agree and Strongly Agree Shown
  43. 43. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Notes on the Data Source: Saugatuck Technology Inc. “Finance in the Cloud” (CFO/CIO) survey, N=317, North America (Dec. 2014) Statements on Financial Management Systems – Finance vs. IT Saugatuck Insight: From an operational point of view, the greatest challenge to IT is consolidating subsidiaries, although Finance must not be aware of the challenges IT has to deal with because it is one of their least concerns. It may be a point of tension consequently. On the competitive side of Finance, enhancing financial systems with Big Data analytics is some- thing both IT and Finance agree strongly about, although IT is significantly more positive. Analytics is clearly a motivator. • IT is even more positive about Big Data analytics than Finance (81-63%). • In every statement but one, IT is significantly more positive than Finance. Alignment is close on finance systems being easy-to-use and timely (65-62%). • The greatest gap between IT and Finance (72-48%) is Consolidation. Page: 43 39% 46% 48% 53% 59% 62% 63% 58% 63% 72% 65% 71% 65% 81% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Our core Financial system is too expensive to run and/or to upgrade. Our Financial systems are highly fragmented with too many disparate interfaces btw them. Consolidating subsidiaries is a major challenge today Our Financial systems easily support rapid, flexible and timely changes in the business. New regulatory requirements have significantly complicated our financial reporting. Our Financial systems provide an easy-to-use and timely "single version of the truth". We believe our financial systems would be enhanced by Big Data analytics. Please rate each of the following statements about your Finance Management System(s) – Agree and Strongly Agree Shown IT Finance
  44. 44. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Notes on the Data Source: Saugatuck Technology Inc. “Finance in the Cloud” (CFO/CIO) survey, N=317, North America (Dec. 2014) Statements on Financial Management Systems – Size Saugatuck Insight: If we assume the very small enterprise (100-999) is a special case and focus on the other three size segments, it is easy to see that Big Data analytics is a hot button across the board, consolidation is a shared challenge, and new regulations have universally complicated financial reporting. Yet as organizations grow in size there is a decline in agreement that systems are easy-to-use and timely. The very small enterprise is the least satisfied with its financial systems. • Consolidation is a major challenge in Large enterprises (72% v 44-63-57%). • Big Data is a strong positive in Large enterprise (70%). • Large enterprises do not feel their finance systems support rapid, flexible, and timely changes. • Big Data analytics and new regulatory requirements are hot buttons in the SMB space (1000-2,999). Page: 44 100 - 999 Employees 1,000 - 2,999 Employees 3,000 - 10,000 Employees > 10,000 Employees We believe our financial systems would be enhanced by Big Data analytics. 63% 75% 72% 70% New regulatory requirements have signi- ficantly complicated our financial reporting. 49% 75% 65% 61% Our Financial systems provide an easy-to- use and timely "single version of the truth". 53% 69% 64% 59% Consolidating subsidiaries is a major challenge today 44% 63% 57% 72% Our Financial systems easily support rapid, flexible and timely changes in the business. 53% 60% 63% 48% Our Financial systems are highly fragmented with too many disparate interfaces btw them. 37% 53% 60% 54% Our core Financial system is too expensive to run and/or to upgrade. 37% 51% 47% 57% Please rate each of the following statements about your Finance Management System(s) – Agree and Strongly Agree Shown
  45. 45. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Statements on FP&A – Insight Summary • Survey Question: Please rate each of the following statements about your Finance Planning & Analysis (FP&A) capabilities and tools (only “Agree” + “Strongly Agree” responses are shown). • Insight Summary: – The data suggest a strong trend toward adoption and use of FP&A tools, which are seen as useful and (increasingly) required, and are being applied to reduce errors and inconsistencies – i.e., to address baseline Finance activity and costs. It appears that FP&A tools / solutions have not – yet – been implemented or leveraged into strategically-advantageous Finance capabilities, likely because Finance must first “clean house.” – IT leaders indicate a significantly greater favor toward FP&A tools than even Finance leaders do. The most likely explanation of the stronger IT response is that the IT group tends to see more of the systems in use overall but also tends to be more focused on system/tool performance than on system/tool use and value in the Finance management and operational context. We have seen similar perception/vision of IT vs Finance and other business units in previous research. It’s very likely that communications gaps exist between Finance and IT leadership. – There’s a tipping point at about 1,000 employees where FP&A needs and value seem to shift, and firms begin outgrowing current tools/systems. Provider value propositions should likely shift at this point as well, from emphasizing the basic functional improvement and utility of FP&A to emphasizing systems growth, adaptability, and error/cost reduction. – Generational factors don’t seem to be factor in FP&A use and satisfaction, but they do seem to factor into the perceived value of FP&A tools and systems. Gen-Y leaders are significantly more likely to be moving beyond spreadsheet-centric Finance cultures and operations toward modern FP&A tools. Page: 45
  46. 46. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Notes on the Data Source: Saugatuck Technology Inc. “Finance in the Cloud” (CFO/CIO) survey, N=317, North America (Dec. 2014) Statements on FP&A – Summary Saugatuck Insight: The data suggest a strong trend toward adoption and use of FP&A tools, which are seen as useful and (increasingly) required, and are being applied to reduce errors and inconsistencies – i.e., to address baseline Finance activity and costs. FP&A tools/solutions have not – yet – been implemented or leveraged into strategically-advantageous Finance capabilities, likely because Finance must first “clean house.” • FP&A systems/tools are widely regarded as useful and integral to Finance – but there’s room for debate as to whether or not they are as useful as spreadsheets. • Only a slim majority of firms have been able to integrate FP&A throughout Finance, let alone the enterprise. Page: 46 49% 55% 59% 60% 62% 66% 67% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% We have not been able to get our organization to buy into FP&A tools We have not found FP&A tools to be as intuitive or as versatile as spreadsheets Inconsistent data has been a problem that we are trying to solve with FP&A tools We are happy and successful with our current FP&A system. Our planning culture has readily adopted FP&A tools with some training required The use of spreadsheets, while helpful for spot analysis, has lead to time-consuming errors We have outgrown the limitations of spreadsheets for FP&A Please rate each of the following statements about your Finance Planning & Analysis (FP&A) capabilities and tools (only “Agree” + “Strongly Agree” responses are shown)
  47. 47. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Notes on the Data Source: Saugatuck Technology Inc. “Finance in the Cloud” (CFO/CIO) survey, N=317, North America (Dec. 2014) Statements on FP&A – Finance vs. IT Saugatuck Insight: The most likely explanation of the stronger IT response above is that the IT group tends to see more of the systems in use overall but also tends to be more focused on system/tool performance than on system/tool use and value in the Finance management and operational context. We have seen similar perception/vision of IT vs Finance and other business units in previous research. • IT leaders indicate a significantly greater favor toward FP&A tools than even Finance leaders do. • The size of the IT-vs- Finance gap may indicate a lack of communication/ understanding between the two groups. Page: 47 45% 52% 53% 57% 57% 61% 63% 53% 59% 66% 63% 69% 73% 73% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% We have not been able to get our organization to buy into FP&A tools We have not found FP&A tools to be as intuitive or as versatile as spreadsheets Inconsistent data has been a problem that we are trying to solve with FP&A tools We are happy and successful with our current FP&A system. Our planning culture has readily adopted FP&A tools with some training required The use of spreadsheets, while helpful for spot analysis, has lead to time-consuming errors We have outgrown the limitations of spreadsheets for FP&A Please rate each of the following statements about your Finance Planning & Analysis (FP&A) capabilities and tools (only “Agree” + “Strongly Agree” responses are shown) IT Finance
  48. 48. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Notes on the Data Source: Saugatuck Technology Inc. “Finance in the Cloud” (CFO/CIO) survey, N=317, North America (Dec. 2014) Statements on FP&A – Size Saugatuck Insight: Smaller firms are more likely to have less-complex finances and therefore experience fewer data errors, inconsistencies, etc. There’s a tipping point at about 1,000 employees where FP&A needs and value seem to shift, and firms begin outgrowing current tools / systems. Provider value propositions should likely shift at this point as well, from emphasizing the basic functional improvement and utility of FP&A to emphasizing systems growth, adaptability, and error / cost reduction. • The smaller the firm, the more likely they are to be happy with their FP&A (and less likely to have a planning culture). • The larger the firm, the more likely they are to reach FP&A system limits – and to see data errors (typically as a result of inconsistent spreadsheet use). Page: 48 100 - 999 Employees 1,000 - 2,999 Employees 3,000 - 10,000 Employees > 10,000 Employees The use of spreadsheets, while helpful for spot analysis, has lead to time-consuming errors 60% 70% 65% 72% We have outgrown the limitations of spreadsheets for FP&A 53% 76% 66% 70% We are happy and successful with our current FP&A system. 65% 60% 60% 57% Our planning culture has readily adopted FP&A tools with some training required 49% 65% 66% 61% Inconsistent data has been a problem that we are trying to solve with FP&A tools 44% 60% 61% 63% We have not found FP&A tools to be as intuitive or as versatile as spreadsheets 42% 63% 57% 46% We have not been able to get our organization to buy into FP&A tools 30% 58% 50% 46% Please rate each of the following statements about your Finance Planning & Analysis (FP&A) capabilities and tools (only “Agree” + “Strongly Agree” responses are shown)
  49. 49. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Notes on the Data Source: Saugatuck Technology Inc. “Finance in the Cloud” (CFO/CIO) survey, N=317, North America (Dec. 2014) Statements on FP&A – Generation Saugatuck Insight: Generational differences don’t seem to be factor in FP&A use and satisfaction, but they do seem to factor into the perceived value of FP&A tools and systems. Gen-Y leaders are significantly more likely to be moving beyond spreadsheet-centric Finance cultures and operations toward modern FP&A tools. • Gen-Ys are much more likely to be fed up with spreadsheets and associated data quality challenges. • Otherwise, FP&A sentiment and experience is very similar across age groups. • It’s not clear if Boomers are much less likely to require training or to have a planning culture. Page: 49 Gen-Y / Millennials Gen-X Baby-Boomers We have outgrown the limitations of spreadsheets for FP&A 79% 68% 73% The use of spreadsheets, while helpful for spot analysis, has lead to time-consuming errors 79% 67% 68% Inconsistent data has been a problem that we are trying to solve with FP&A tools 76% 59% 59% Our planning culture has readily adopted FP&A tools with some training required 79% 66% 48% We are happy and successful with our current FP&A system. 62% 63% 55% We have not found FP&A tools to be as intuitive or as versatile as spreadsheets 56% 57% 59% We have not been able to get our organization to buy into FP&A tools 59% 49% 52% Please rate each of the following statements about your Finance Planning & Analysis (FP&A) capabilities and tools (only “Agree” + “Strongly Agree” responses are shown)
  50. 50. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Appendix A – About the Survey / Demographics • The data in this report come from a Web survey conducted by Saugatuck in November 2014. • The research focused on North American Finance and IT leaders at companies with greater than 100 employees, with the focus on upper-mid and large enterprises. In total, 317 executives participated in the research – with the responses equally split between the two functional groups. • Approximately 85 percent of the responses came from senior decision makers with Director and higher functional title levels, as follows: 37 percent were C-level, EVPs, SVPs or GVPs; 19 percent VP, GM or Controller level, and 29 percent Director level. Page: 50 By Employee Size 100 – 999 14% 1,000 – 2,999 28% 3,000 – 10,000 42% >10,000 15% Total 100% By Title C - Level 30% EVP / SVP / GVP 7% VP / GM / Controller 19% Director 29% Manager 8% Analyst 3% Other 5% Total 100% By Industry Business / Professional Services 9% Consumer Packaged Goods / Food & Bev 5% Energy / Utilities / Chemicals 8% Financial Services / Insurance / Banking 17% Health Care / Pharmaceutical / Life Science 14% High Technology / Telecom/ Media / Enter. 14% Manu / Supply Chain / Distrib. / Retail 16% Public Sector / Government 4% Other, please specify 13% Total 100% By Function Finance 51% IT 49% Total 100%
  51. 51. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com Appendix B – Research Reprint License About This Research • This independently developed research was published as a deliverable of Saugatuck's Continuous Research Services (CRS) subscription research program. Tagetik Software has been granted the right to reprint and electronically distribute this Saugatuck Strategic Research Report (1492SSR) through its website, through September 13, 2015. • Entire contents © 1999-2015, Saugatuck Technology Inc. All rights reserved. Opinions reflect judgment at the time and are subject to change. About Saugatuck: • Saugatuck Technology, Inc. provides subscription research and management consulting services focused on the key market trends and disruptive technologies driving change in enterprise IT, including Software-as-a-Service (SaaS), Cloud Infrastructure, Social Computing, Mobility and Advanced Analytics, among others. Founded in 1999, Saugatuck is headquartered in Westport, CT, with presence in metro Boston, Silicon Valley, and Frankfurt, Germany. For more information, please visit www.saugatucktechnology.com, or call +1.203.454.3900. • To request a briefing with our analysts, contact Chris MacGregor at chris.macgregor@saugatucktechnology.com. Page: 51
  52. 52. Copyright 2014 ǀ Saugatuck Technology, Inc. ǀ All Rights Reserved www.saugatucktechnology.com About Saugatuck Technology Page: 52 CONTINUOUS RESEARCH SERVICES (CRS) • Subscription access to Saugatuck’s ongoing premium research, providing independent / unbiased insights and guidance into key market trends, buyer behavior, "white-space" opportunities and disruptive market forces driving changes in business computing. • A variety of advisory services, including telephone-based inquiry, and “Analyst Days” USER STRATEGIC CONSULTING SERVICES • Leadership and Planning Workshops • Strategy and Program Assessments – including for new Cloud Business initiatives • Vendor Selection & Evaluation / RFP Development & PoC Project Management • Cloud Transition / Migration and Management Best Practices VENDOR STRATEGIC CONSULTING SERVICES • Market Assessment • Strategy Validation • Opportunity Analysis • Positioning / Messaging / Go-to-Market Strategies • Competitive Analysis THOUGHT-LEADERSHIP PROGRAMS • Custom research programs targeting key technology and business/IT investment decisions of CIOs, CFOs and senior business executives • Delivered as research reports, position papers or executive presentations. VALUE-ADDED SERVICES • Competitive and market intelligence • Investment advisory services (M&A support, due diligence) • Primary and Secondary market research. SAUGATUCK OFFERINGS AND SERVICES Saugatuck Technology provides subscription research / advisory and consulting services to senior business and IT executives, technology and software vendors, business / IT services providers, and investors. Our Mission is to help our clients make better business decisions and create new business value through trusted and objective insights into the key market trends and emerging technologies driving real change. Over the last few years, this has included a major focus on Software-as-a-Service (SaaS), Cloud Infrastructure, and Social Business Technologies, among other key trends. For more information about these or any other Saugatuck Technology service, please reach us through the contact information noted above. • To learn more about Saugatuck consulting and research offerings, go to www.saugatucktechnology.com or email Chris MacGregor for more information. • While there register on our site and begin receiving our complimentary Research Alerts and browse our Research Library. US AND EUROPEAN OFFICES Headquarters Saugatuck Technology Inc. 8 Wright Street, 1st Floor. Westport, CT 06880 USA (P) +1.203.454.3900 US Regional Sales: al.vanek@saugatucktechnology.com Germany Saugatuck Technology Inc. Wilhelmstrasse 18 65185 Wiesbaden, Germany (P) +49.6123.630285 Regional Sales: frank.sempert@saugatucktechnology.com • • •• •

×