Good but now dated article on the subject... Good Luck
http://www.iwr.co.uk/News/1141574
Don't panic on mega mergers, say experts
JD Edwards/Peoplesoft/Oracle bids no reason to tear up existing plans
By James Watson [12-06-2003]
The shakeout in the enterprise application software market should not panic IT directors into changing strategies, according to analysts.
Meta Group vice president Rakesh Kumar said that existing or potential buyers of PeopleSoft, JD Edwards and Oracle software need to draw a clear distinction between what is going on in the market and their own business requirements.
"Plans made before [the takeover bids] should still be exactly the same. All you need to do now is decide who's best to supply the technology for that plan," he said.
Kumar offers straightforward advice:
Don't do anything rash. If you can, delay projects in the short term if it doesn't affect your project's overall delivery timeline.
Keep your company's requirements intact, determine which vendor best suits those needs and don't be influenced by the potential ramifications of any deals.
If you hadn't considered it before, don't suddenly consider outsourcing your ERP technology to a service provider.
Bear in mind that the bulk of the cost on an ERP implementation lies in the integration. Regardless of which vendor you choose this cost will remain the same.
Gartner is also advising end users to proceed with caution if they are in the middle of a JD Edwards or PeopleSoft deployment.
If you're a potential buyer, don't sign a deal until it becomes clear whether Oracle's plans to acquire PeopleSoft are serious.
The analyst stressed that different responses need to be considered depending on which bid is made.
If PeopleSoft sees off the Oracle bid, it may suffer a short-term setback in share price that may disrupt plans to buy JD Edwards.
But users should stay focused on the long-term viability of the vendors' products, which should not be significantly changed.
If Oracle's bid succeeds, customers may experience short-term disruptions such as delays in releases, but will feel little long-term impact.
They should evaluate how long installed products will support their needs and understand what migration plans Oracle has to offer.
If Oracle wins but does not purchase JD Edwards, customers should not begin new initiatives using JD Edwards because the company is likely seek an alternative buyer.
Practical advice makes sense but the shake-up adds instability to a market that is struggling to make progress after a protracted downturn.
Chief executives need little reason to find excuses not to spend, and users face a difficult time evaluating strategies.
"There has been a variety of reactions among the user community. If you asked 32 different customers you'd get 32 different reactions," said DeLaine Perkins, executive director at Quest, the JD Edwards user group.
But all the protagonists in the rapidly consolidating applications software sector need to remember their customers' priorities.
"Users' main focus is what works in their business environment and that there is no break in the support they get. For them it's business as usual. The excitement of the last week will die off because people have bigger problems than that," said Perkins.
WHAT THE EXPERTS SAY:
Richard Holway, director, Ovum Holway.
The investment downturn made a period of mergers and acquisitions inevitable and it's a game that can only be played by a select few of the biggest vendors: IBM, Oracle, SAP and Microsoft.
Holway dubbed 2000 the year of the suit; today, he's calling 2003 the year of the suite.
"Users are moving away from tier-two companies towards those that can provide an entire suite of products under one roof," he explained.
The consequences for the end-user need not be negative. "Consolidation will lead to less choice for consumers, but will also lead to the commoditisation of the enterprise software market, which means lower prices for users," said Holway.
Martin Atherton, enterprise application analyst, Datamonitor.
Just as the application software business was in danger of getting boring, the implications of having only two truly global-packaged enterprise software vendors are significant.
PeopleSoft and JD Edwards becoming one made sense at many levels. It is acknowledged that the application software business is maturing. In order to maintain growth, vendors needed to expand their remit.
If Oracle gets to own the installed base of PeopleSoft and JD Edwards, we can be sure of some interesting times ahead. But ultimately, and rather ironically in the face of much industry discussion about 'openness and choice', rather less of it for the user.
James Governor, analyst, RedMonk.
Hostile takeovers in the software business are rare and don't have a track record of success.
Software assets are transportable but people can leave. Oracle's proposed acquisition faces significant challenges and I don't think it will go through.
The side effect is that SAP benefits. I don't think any financial director is going to allow his company to buy PeopleSoft [products] until this is resolved.
But this is also about infrastructure. Oracle can't afford to have a strong player such as a combined PeopleSoft and JD Edwards pushing IBM's middleware.
You have to wonder what IBM would do if the software industry consolidated around SAP and Oracle.
