Duh? Lawson is a niche player but you can't deny it is doing quite well at the moment.

I prefer to see a strategy based on substantive issues: better features, better implementation process, better SOMETHING. But being the anti-company doesn't cut it for me -- it's a lousy long-term strategy, in my opinion.

Lawson has always impressed me, the IBM middleware stack was a sensible move, and the intentia merger is now showing promise.

But the CEO making a big deal about being the maverick vendor in the SAP and Oracle customer base is hardly inspiring..

Again, I'm sure he's a smart guy and is making good moves, etc. HOWEVER, defining your strategy merely in terms of your major competitors is not a long-term success plan. It means there is a "wrinkle" in the market today, where customers are unhappy with SAP and/or Oracle, and his plan is to take advantage of that. However, long-term success in software is based on innovation; merely being the "non-evil" alternative is not good enough.

I believe you've taken his comment out of context. He didn't say that was the strategy. I think the corporate strategy was more precisely defined in the previous sentence where he said "...there is room for a nimble, focused competitor that gives the customer service" The statement you have seized upon is that Lawson's focus is the antithesis of Oracle and SAP.

Dear M.Blair,

Thanks for jumping in here. According to the blog logfile you work for Lawson, so I'm especially delighted you've commented.

Unfortunately, I respectfully beg to differ with your analysis. The title of the original Computerworld interview was "The CEO of Lawson talks about ERP on demand, market consolidation and playing the role of the anti-SAP".

Clearly, the anti-SAP role was a significant enough component of the interview for Computerworld to have called it out in the title.

Further, I did not say this was Lawson's only positioning strategy, rather, that being the "anti-" company seems weak to me. Hey, if this helps Lawson sell software, then more power to Lawson. There is certainly a group of customers who prefer not to deal with the SAPs and Oracles of the world.

The "anti-" company model may be good for Lawson in the short-run, but I continue to believe it's a lousy long-term strategy.

By the way, your CEO has an open invitation to be interviewed by this blog, so we can set the record straight.

Michael Krigsman

My apologies for wasting both our time. I didn't realize when I posted my response that you were so attached, if you will, to SAP as evidenced by your website, and that your criticism is probably rooted in that vein. Certainly you know that Harry didn't right the title for the article, nor control the inference that the writer may have derived from the interview. As you noted, I do work for Lawson, and can tell you that our focus is indeed on our customers and prospects. We know we offer a solid alternative to the "big boys" and if that makes us "anti-..." in the process, then so be it. I would think that said more about them than it did us frankly.

Finally, you invite Harry to "set the record straight", but I was unaware it was anything but straight. I'm sure it's a moot point, but maybe if you wish to invite people to be guests of your blog, the invitation shouldn't be so confrontational?

I write positive and negative posts based on the merits as I see it in every case. Your CEO put forth a positioning statement designed to attract attention; both the Computerworld writer and I picked up on it.

By the way, apologies if my tone seemed confrontational -- that was certainly not my intention. The offer to interview Harry stands. Please ask his assistant to shoot me an email. I would be very interested to learn what Lawson is doing to improve implementation success on customer deployments.