It may seem blindingly obvious, but the primary reason for the existence of IT infrastructure is the support of the business processes that have generated the cash needed to create them. It is also something worth restating, because there are certainly cases where, regardless of the amount of cash spent, the infrastructures have singularly failed to deliver on their promises (or more commonly, hype).  

A good example is the amount of money and time that has been dissipated by many companies on the additional hardware and software resources needed to consolidate the business results of a multi-entity operation. And just for clarity, that means companies with multiple business units around the world and/or those built around a series of acquisitions. Both types have the problem of trying to bring as many of the business numbers as possible into a consolidated, coherent whole. This is a legal necessity which cares not that it means translating many different currencies into that of the main business unit. It can also mean trying to translate the business processes of an acquisition into something comprehensible to both HQ and the other business units. 

Companies can spend $100 million or more on trying to achieve this, and spend five or more years essentially failing to achieve the goal. At best, what they end up with is a huge spreadsheet offering a financial snapshot of a single moment in time for the business. There is no guarantee that the snapshot is even accurate and it most certainly is, like a suddenly discovered old photograph, without any contextual relationship to the business. 

This is considered state-of-the-art in the application of technology to business, yet should businesses be accepting a single photograph as good enough at a time when businesses need the context of full-colour, real-time video with slow motion replay available at any time? We expect it when watching any sport on TV. 

So the fact that it is now possible to get that real-time contextual depth from a consolidation – in the form of NetSuite’s recently introduced OneWorld adaptation of its SaaS-delivered business management system – is something that is genuinely worthy of a cheer. The ability to consolidate the results of overseas subsidiaries or acquired companies in 12 different languages and some 170 currencies, all at a mouse click, is an important capability in the management of any company. The fact that business managers can then drill down into the data, also in real time, to identify and resolve problems in the consolidation is a development of some real significance. 

But perhaps the most important aspect of OneWorld is that is a SaaS offering. This means that it is both extremely cost effective – at $1,999/month on top of  other NetSuite charges – and very flexible. For example, the basics underpinning being able to consolidate results is that it requires just one model of the business and its processes and service requirements, which can then be spun-out to the subsidiaries in their own language and currency, as well as their particular tax regulations and other country-specific compliance issues. It can even be used to hold and deliver the source material for subsidiaries’ websites, each rendered in the language of the country.  

It is also quite undemanding. Though the basis of OneWorld is an updated version of NetSuite’s database – and therefore holds the potential to generate the fear of users facing a technology lock-in – it actually offers considerable flexibility. It is not a rip-and –replace, green-field-only solution which requires users to throw away their existing applications. It is definitely for the real-world of `brown-field’ infrastructures. For example, there will be many companies with existing ERP systems on top of which OneWorld can run to provide the consolidation capabilities as an addition to what has been possible so far. 

This alone is an important capability because of the way SaaS is likely to be implemented by a large number of companies. They are all likely to have a baseline of applications that are critical to the business and which they are unlikely to want to abandon without good cause. So SaaS is likely to creep into a lot of businesses, quite possibly starting with what are seen as unimportant tasks. But if it can creep in, accommodate and interoperate with existing infrastructures and also do something of core importance to the business, it could be just the tool needed to be the lever to prise open markets for SaaS. After all, just like every other major development SaaS will probably need a `killer application’ and OneWorld might just be it.