If It's Good For Them, Why Not Me?

Ironically, many of the benefits of a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) system, are negatives for a large enterprise. Large systems have lots of moving pieces, many of which are from different vendors and touch different users of varying skill level. Therefore flexibility and control are critical for these organizations, but are not strengths of SaaS solutions. Roll-outs of upgrades are major events, which can wreak havoc in a large organization if not well thought out. Customers of SaaS providers like Salesforce.com are typically at the mercy of the vendor. Even the common subscription model itself can be disconcerting. CIO's tend to like assurance and hate uncertainty, leaving a lot of "what if's."

What if:
-the vendor goes out of business like all those ASP's in the '90s?
-the vendor loses my data?
-the vendor's systems are down?
-I want/need to change the UI
-there is a security hole?
-I need access to my data and I lack an Internet connection?
-the vendor is acquired by some other company and their data ownership and privacy policies change and are unappealing?

While these are questions that every SaaS customer must ask and company must answer, the implications for large organizations are magnified. After all, if the home-cook burns the steak, only a few, [mostly] forgiving friends and family members are left unhappy. If the professional chef burns the steak, many, [mostly] unforgiving customers are left unhappy, angry, and quite vocal about it.

So that begs the question. Can a bad SaaS system, like a bad chef, remain in business for long? Some of us know all too well that a bad home-cook can keep on cooking for many, many, many years. But what about the chef?