Category: application hosting

Posted on

Criteria for Evaluating QuickBooks Hosting Providers: Going Beyond Pricing

Criteria for Evaluating QuickBooks Hosting Providers: Going Beyond Pricing

When a small business elects to run their QuickBooks desktop edition software in the “cloud”, it makes sense to work with an experienced provider – a company with the people and the experience to keep the QuickBooks desktop software working properly and securely.  The keys to selecting the best provider for the business are often hidden in the experiences of others; experiences which reveal issues that may significantly impact vendor selection and which have nothing to do with the price of the service. Criteria such as system performance, responsiveness to technical issues, resources for self-help, and knowledge of support personnel – these are the things that more frequently and directly impact the customer experience and, ultimately, the customer’s loyalty.

While Intuit supports QuickBooks Enterprise in terminal server and Remote Desktop environments, they only support the license when it is deployed for the single business organization the license was issued to. If a business has lots of different users on the platform and those users don’t belong to the one company who “owns” the infrastructure and the license, then the implementation is non-compliant and won’t be supported. Intuit also doesn’t offer direct support for QuickBooks Pro and QuickBooks Premier editions in remote desktop implementations, yet the software will work perfectly well in that environment. There are a few quirks and tricks to using the software in this manner, however, so provider technical experience specifically with QuickBooks is essential.

When working with a company providing managed application hosting services and not just managed server platforms, it generally means that the provider is taking responsibility not only for the server/network/infrastructure, but also for the setup, configuration and maintenance of system users and security, and the installation/management/maintenance of the applications running on the server.  When a business elects to outsource this level of service to any 3rd party, there are a variety of areas in addition to pricing which should be thoroughly explored prior to signing the service agreement.

When evaluating potential service providers, research the provider’s offerings and performance directly as well as evaluating the public’s perception of them, considering these 4 areas:

  1. Technology
  2. Innovation
  3. Business Practices
  4. Customer Satisfaction

The technology evaluation relates not only to the systems and tools applied to the service delivery, but also to the systems or tools applied to assist the customer with dealing with the service.  Too often, providers pay more attention to their ordering systems than their service delivery, believing that a quality customer experience rests more with simple purchasing processes than with a functional and well-performing application service.  Others may focus on delivering the best and highest quality application service, yet relegate their clients to sending emails or making phone calls to place service orders or request service information.  The providers who score the highest points in this category are those who recognize that both elements – service delivery and service administration – are critically important to providing a quality overall customer experience.

The innovation evaluation looks at the actual service infrastructure and delivery. This includes features as well as limitations.  One of the pitfalls of being an application service provider is the inertia created with existing systems and customers.  Once the platform is in place and there are a bunch of users on the systems, upgrading and updating the underlying technologies can be a tremendous challenge.  I have often related this as being like trying to change tires on a moving truck.  Unfortunately, systems age and lose functionality, compatibility, support, etc.

Keeping the platform updated isn’t the only element involved with scoring provider innovation.  Even more important than simple change management supporting status quo, true innovation speaks to efforts directed towards crafting a better, more functional and more useful solution delivery.  Many skilled technicians can set up a terminal server for remote access to QuickBooks using the “standard” tools available, but it takes more skill and understanding to create a service which offers more and better capability than everyone else.  The point isn’t that the provider is changing QuickBooks software in any way – that’s not really an option.  Rather, it is in how the provider elects to architect their systems and solution, and whether they are attempting to improve the experience and deliver with a unique approach rather than a generic one.

With increased competition and as some provider platforms experience challenges either due to age or capacity, certain “interesting” practices have emerged.  I now look at these business practices as part of the process of evaluating providers.  In the early days of hosting and application delivery, the business practices of various providers had some similarities, but not any more.  The practices which frustrate me most and which always cause me to score the provider with low marks in this category relate almost exclusively to transparency – or lack thereof.  Here are two scenarios which I’ve seen come up with some frequency, and which (in my opinion) are indications that the provider may not necessarily be one you want to work with.

  • A business has signed a one-year service agreement with a hosting provider, and has been required to prepay that annual contract.  The business was not provided with a demonstration or evaluation system prior to executing the service agreement; they simply trusted the information provided by sales.  After a few months on the service, the performance and support are so poor that the business wants out of the annual agreement, even though high service levels and support responses were part of the contract.  In order to be allowed to end the service agreement and stop paying for the service, the business was told they would have to not only buy out a portion of the remaining contract, but also sign an agreement not to communicate the service problems they experienced or the exit agreement terms with anyone. (*please note that I am essentially in agreement about having to buy out a committed term agreement, at least in part, but applying a gag order? Not so much).
  • A business is using the services of a hosting provider, and has a need to know details of their delivery (like server operating system version) in order to verify compatibility with a new software product they wish to purchase.  Before the business customer is allowed to obtain the information, the provider requires that they sign an agreement promising not to disclose the information they may receive to any other party.  (*note: While I recognize that this type of agreement is desirable to protect proprietary information, it is more often used to prevent the prospective customer from disclosing something potentially negative, and it certainly doesn’t do much in terms of building trust.)

The final evaluation is on customer satisfaction, where anecdotes and information is collected from both current and past customers of the provider.  Admittedly, much of this information I scour from various forums and discussion groups and interviews but it is truly amazing what you can learn about a business simply by listening to customer stories in various social venues.  The picture these stories paint is often (frequently!) very different from the “happy sunshine and rainbows” testimonials you find on websites and in marketing brochures.  Of course, who would buy from a provider who says their “support is great until you’ve been with us for a month, and then we pretty much don’t care about you any more”.  Also, people tend to be more vocal when they’re mad about something, so there is often more negative than positive out there in the social realm, so weight that carefully.  But the fact that certain provider names come up more often than others is the clue; when you don’t see the provider name come up in these discussions, it usually means they’re simply not making people mad.

There is a lot to consider in selecting the right service provider for the business, and the items listed above are just part of it.  While there are some (few) standards among application service providers, it is still what some might refer to as an “emerging” model and will continue to evolve with the market demand and technology.

For now, businesses just need to know that their solution provider is trustworthy and willing to communicate honestly and completely. Selecting the right provider – a provider who supports their business and model with full transparency to the client –  will help the business move forward just as the wrong provider is more likely to hold it back.  While pricing is an important and unavoidable aspect of the discussion, businesses should also put some focus on these other elements which help to reveal how the provider works with their customers, and to determine whether or not they can (or will even try to) meet your requirements now and in the future. 

Make Sense?

Joanie Mann Bunny FeetJ

Posted on

Many Companies Are Negligent About SAP Security, Researchers Say – CIO.com

Is your hosting service provider helping to keep your critical business applications secure?  It is not enough to simply harden machine images and develop policy-driven access; application hosting providers need to understand the vulnerabilities introduced by each and every application in the environment.  Otherwise, the system could be exposed to threats directed specifically at the application environment and opportunities it presents.

Many hosting providers will offer customers service for any business application they have, and often provide those services with no significant experience or expertise in dealing with configuration or security issues specific to those applications or environments.  Consider the following report from IDC which indicates that numerous SAP deployments remain vulnerable to attack or intrusion, even though SAP has improved security of the products. The problem rests not exclusively with the SAP applications, but also with the approach to implementation of systems and security around those applications.  Understanding the various vulnerabilities introduced with SAP products is the first step to securing them.  Certainly a skilled IT solution provider is likely to offer a high level of service and capability, but there may be issues presented by various products (like SAP) which introduce additional or unique considerations, and it is important for the service provider to be aware of and address them.

Joanie Mann Bunny FeetMake Sense?

J

IDG News Service — SAP has significantly improved the security of its products over the past few years but many of its customers are negligent with their deployments, which exposes them to potential attacks that could cripple their businesses, according to security researchers.

The biggest issue is that companies expose insecure SAP services to the Internet — not only HTTP services, but also critical administrative interfaces, Alexander Polyakov, chief technology officer at ERPScan, a developer of security monitoring products for SAP systems, said Tuesday.

Between 5 percent and 10 percent of companies that use SAP products expose critical services to the Internet that shouldn’t be publicly accessible, Polyakov said. This happens because they want to enable remote management or because of improper configurations, he said.

Most of the services have vulnerabilities that can be easily attacked, Polyakov said.

Publicly available exploits exist for many SAP vulnerabilities, including some that are part of Metasploit, a popular security testing tool.

The percentage of companies with exposed SAP services differs from country to country. The situation is better in North America and Europe and worse in the Asia-Pacific region, Africa and Latin America, Polyakov said. However, even 5 percent translates to a very large number of companies, he said.

via Many Companies Are Negligent About SAP Security, Researchers Say – CIO.com.

Posted on

HIPAA Privacy and Security and the Cloud

jmbunnyfeet

HIPAA Privacy and Security and the Cloud

Is your cloud solution or hosting service HIPAA compliant?  This is among the most frequently asked questions from professionals shopping for cloud hosting service.  Unfortunately, it is also among the questions most frequently answered with ambiguity, or with naiveté.  The problem is that many businesses dealing with HIPAA compliance responsibilities as it relates to protection and security of personal health information may not fully understand their responsibilities as they extend to outsource IT and other service providers.  In the case of HIPAA compliance, many providers suggest their compliance without truly understanding what it means, and are introducing significant risk to their business and subscribing customers because of it.  With recent changes in rules relating to protection and control of personal health information, it is not just the health care provider, the health plan, 3rd party administrator or others that process health insurance claim information which must agree to provide adequate controls – the requirement may fully extend to business associates of these entities… possibly including their cloud service or hosting solution providers.

Some of the largest breaches reported to HHS have involved business associates. Penalties are increased for noncompliance based on the level of negligence with a maximum penalty of $1.5 million per violation. The changes also strengthen the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Breach Notification requirements by clarifying when breaches of unsecured health information must be reported to HHS. http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2013pres/01/20130117b.html

HIPAA guidelines and rules exist to protect and secure personal health information, a requirement growing in importance with advancements in technology, electronic health records, e-billing solutions, and cloud computing adoption.  Where the regulations were once focused on the entity directly involved in generating or processing the information, the view is now extended not only to 3rd party administrators, but also to the technology solutions and providers involved.  When a “covered entity” (an entity with a responsibility to protect and secure personal health information [PHI]) makes a decision to move this information to the cloud, a number of important and complicated issues must be addressed in the agreements with the service or solution provider.  These issues include security and privacy of information (including providing individuals the right to access and request changes to the stored information), tools which may be provided to allow the customer additional security protection, encryption of data at rest and in transmission (and who holds the keys), data location, return of data, disaster recovery, and service levels.

Cloud provider contracts and business associate agreements with cloud providers are not one-size-fits-all and should be negotiated carefully to protect PHI in a manner that accurately reflects the capabilities of the parties http://www.americanbar.org/content/newsletter/groups/labor_law/ebc_newsletter/12_winter_ebc_news/ebc12winter_cloud.html

The provider delivering cloud hosting services to the business may now be considered to be a “business associate” under HIPAA, meaning that the responsibilities of the Customer (the “covered entity”) also extend to their service provider. For any business operating under a HIPAA compliance requirement, moving to the cloud must necessarily involve a detailed discussion and set of agreements that spell out the “business associate” relationship as well as the details of the service delivery and accepted performance levels.

Joanie Mann Bunny FeetMake Sense?

J

Posted on

QuickBooks In-House Hosting Services for Accountants

QuickBooks Hosting Services for IT-Capable Accountants

DIY-SelfHostingSmall businesses in large numbers are looking to the cloud as a platform to deliver solutions for the problems of escalating IT costs, mobility, and remote access to business data. The cloud is also becoming the recommended platform for the delivery of services from accounting and bookkeeping professionals, as the benefits of remote data access and real-time collaboration nicely address the requirement for accounting pros to exchange and share information with their business clients. One of the popular “cloud” hosting solutions addressing a collaborative accounting model is a hosted application approach to using Intuit QuickBooks desktop products. While accounting professionals may be aware that QuickBooks can be hosted by 3rd party providers, many firms are not aware of what is referred to as the “self-host” model, which is a QuickBooks hosting model for accounting firms with some in-house technical capability.

For small businesses and many accounting service providers, working with a 3rd party hosting provider makes a lot of sense, as the host has the infrastructure and the support organization necessary to service large-scale hosted customer requirements.

On the other hand, there are a lot of accounting and bookkeeping firms which have skilled in-house IT personnel who are more than capable of creating a hosting environment to serve not only their internal needs, but also to meet basic requirements of the QuickBooks-using clients they work with. It makes sense to explore the possibilities of implementing a “self-hosting” model for client access to QuickBooks, overcoming the cost and other barriers involved with 3rd party hosting services.

When an accounting firm works with a number of clients with QuickBooks desktop edition files, the firm has to install and manage not only their own software products, but also the relevant QuickBooks software products in use by the various clients (must have the right QB program in order to open the QB data file). This often puts an undue burden on the internal IT systems of the practice which has its own internal-use software and systems to support. With an internal hosting approach, the firm can provide standardized/centralized application hosting services to their clients, building their own “economy of scale” on the platform and reducing the IT management while achieving all the real-time and remote access benefits of an outsourced hosted model. The firm does not experience a retail cost for a hosting solution, and the cost to host the client is generally offset through the efficiency gained at the firm level through direct access to client data and applications.

The technical model for delivering hosting services to a relatively small client base is not overly complicated. Commercial service providers have complex architectures because they must serve a large and diverse client base, and they never really know what sort of devices (computers and printers) or connectivity the customer may have. Commercial providers have to be prepared to deal with any and all situations, where a “self-host” firm needs only to concern themselves with supporting their particular client users and use cases. Additionally, when the solution is offered as part of the accounting or bookkeeping service, the support requirements of the customer tend to be focused during mutual working hours, as opposed to the 24×7 support demanded of the commercial host.

As accountants and bookkeepers search for solutions to improve efficiency, increase profitability and differentiate services, it makes sense for those serving QuickBooks desktop clients and having an in-house IT capability to explore becoming a QuickBooks self-host. It is one possible way to eliminate cost as a barrier to working closer with QuickBooks desktop clients while providing the mobility and collaboration businesses need.

 

Make Sense?

Joanie Mann Bunny FeetJ

Posted on

Preparing for Disasters of the Legal Kind

Preparing for Disasters of the Legal Kind

As businesses begin to realize the benefits of cloud computing and business data mobility, they may be overlooking one of the most important issues any enterprise can face: information management in the event of litigation.  While the IT department probably has a disaster recovery plan for handling various computer system failures, is there also a plan for managing system data and electronic information in the event of a “legal disaster”?  In the spotlight is e-discovery, which is the requirement of the business to respond to legal requests for electronically stored information, and the issues CIOs and business owners should be paying attention to as computing solutions and technology models continue to change at a rapid pace.

The popularity of BYOD (Bring Your Own Device), data sync solutions, and online collaboration tools has created an environment where business data may exist in various states (meaning as in conditions or status, not as in State, like California) and on a variety of devices and systems, some of which may not be in the direct control of internal IT.  Regardless of where or how the information was delivered to these devices and systems, CIOs and business owners should recognize that the information on those devices is included in discovery requests, and should be prepared with a plan for dealing with the response.

This “e-discovery plan” is the most important thing, and it means not only working through the various aspects of managing the information, but also providing consideration to keeping the plan updated.  As technology changes, and as user behavior changes along with it, businesses must adjust their IT management approaches in kind.  Consider that a user couldn’t store business data on their phone until the phone was able to handle that function.   Now that smartphones are the norm and tablet computers are gaining in popularity, business data is roaming on personal and business devices.  These advancements may introduce productivity and process gains which provide an advantage to businesses, but they also introduce potential risk and certain complexity when it comes to e-discovery.

Litigation is always expensive, but sanctions for slow response or other costs can be avoided if the plan helps the business respond in a timely manner.  For this reason, the plan should include an identification of all sources for information (every location where business information and data is stored), as well as the steps to be taken to preserve this data in the current state.  If the business has systems which regularly purge information (like accounting systems which purge prior period details, email systems which automatically purge old emails, or backup systems which delete old backup files as new ones are made), all of these activities must be halted.  If the company doesn’t have access to control the various devices and systems to prevent these activities (or doesn’t know that they are happening), significant risk is introduced.  In the case of a legal “hold”, all data and metadata and the audit controls and files must be preserved.

The final steps in the plan are the steps to be taken after the litigation is over.  This is often times a forgotten part of the plan, which is the final destruction of the information gathered for discovery.  Not that the original data must be destroyed (consider ALL dependencies), but the “database” of collected information related to the litigation probably should be.  With this data pooled in a single place, it becomes a potentially valuable target for a data breach.  At minimum, the collected information could too-easily be pulled into an entirely new legal case.

IT managers, CIOs and business owners must be realistic about the information their enterprises generate and store, including being realistic about the risk potential that duplicated and mobile data represents.  It is not that the enterprise should be afraid of allowing mobility and providing remote access solutions, but it is essential that the enterprise control the use of these solutions and how they use or interact with business data.   Without a strictly enforced policy of usage and control for all devices, services and solutions “touching” business data, any legal disaster planning falls short.

Joanie Mann Bunny FeetMake Sense?

J

Read More:

Posted on

e-Discovery in the Cloud: Benefits versus Risks

e-Discovery in the Cloud: Benefits versus Risks

After many years of working with business professionals in “enabling” their organizations to make better use of technology, I must say that it is a bit frustrating trying to get folks to understand that this new and wonderful cloud computing model (or Internet-based computing, SaaS, or whatever-you-want-to-call-it computing) is still just technology.  It uses computers and disk drives, it runs software, it takes electricity, and it was developed by human beings.  It can break.   It’s not magical and perfect and you can’t get the good stuff for free.  Swim at your own risk.  So, assess the risks, and measure the benefits against the risks and costs.  For many, the benefits outweigh the risks, as cloud computing approaches can deliver advanced capabilities at cost levels not previously available to most businesses.

No industry is immune to the security and access considerations surrounding a cloud computing model.  Particular those lawyers involved in e-discovery (all of them) have recognizing the potential benefits – and tradeoffs – of the model.  This reality was clearly revealed at the ILTA (International Legal Technology Association) 2010 event in Las Vegas.  While the discussions at the conference were oriented specifically towards the legal profession, the IT-related discussions are totally relevant to every business.  Accounting and finance professionals should pay close attention to this type of conversation, as it relates very directly to accounting’s approach to information technology and the application of IT in the business or professional practice.

In a recap of the event entitled ILTA 2010 in Las Vegas: Strategic Unity, Defensibility, and the Cloud, author Chris Dale discussed that professionals in both public and corporate service must work with the IT departments towards a common goal.  “IT is no longer just a service department providing an infrastructure, applications, training, and troubleshooting.”  While these elements still remain as critical aspects of IT, the role has grown to also incorporate considerations for collaboration (collaborative information management), mobility, and social media.

Recounting one session attended, called Defensible Ediscovery Processes, the author related the variety of definitions provided to the general term” defensible”, which were pretty amusing.  These definitions ranged from “protected against attack“, to “less lousy practices“ or “practices which suck the least” (my personal favorite), and finally, “what you can get away with without being found guilty of spoliation“.  From these definitions then came qualifiers, such as “reasonableness” and “faith”.

Why would defensible processes be important, and how does this relate to IT or cloud computing?  An example of the element of “faith” came up in this context: ” how can [lawyers] have faith that the technology is delivering the right answers?”  A panelist gave the sample of “an email retrieved from (or possibly not retrieved from [love those lawyers]) a system, with 26.5 pages missing.  How can you be sure that the systems which you are using will not do that to you?”  These are valid questions in any IT environment, and are no less important when considering a cloud-based technology model.   The trade-offs are related to perfection in functionality and performance of the solution versus cost, and should be measured in proportion to one another.

The tradeoffs may come in a variety of areas, with collaboration and connectivity being the primary drivers (collaboration) and barriers (connectivity) to the model.  Businesses are more than ready to adopt cloud computing strategies based on the belief in improved collaboration, access to information, and improved IT management,  but tend to overlook the offsets in the areas of bandwidth availability (and consistency), application functionality (or lack thereof), and level of support available from the provider.  In support of this argument,  Jerry Justice (IT Director for SS&G – Certified Public Accountants and Advisers) posted in a LinkedIn discussion on the topic that “by design the Internet is ‘reasonably’ connected, but not the same as a well-connected [local] network.  the upside is it gives you the ability to connect from great distances, the tradeoff is that you experience variable connectivity.”

“The underlying issues are that there is a paradigm shift to working on the Internet (from working in the office) and then another shift when you add in cloud-based environments (versus local apps).  It is possible to be very productive, but .. you have to adapt your approaches“.

The idea “that perfect must be qualified by cost and proportionality” was also discussed in an ILTA session on cloud computing which included panelists from Autonomy iManage, Mayer Brown, and Ernst & Young.  “Cloud computing remains a contentious area, with no obvious agreement even as to what the term means, let alone as to its implications” wrote Mr Dale in his recap of the event.  While the panelists held differing views, the representative from Mayer Brown held a position similar to Mr Dale, in that it is important to “dissect the objections one at a time, accepting that there is room for more than one view, and testing arguments against the alternatives.  Arguments based on pure cost are pretty compelling, and if one method of achieving an objective is very much cheaper than the others, then the burden shifts to those who argue for the more expensive route.”

Discussions went on to describe differences between public cloud providers and others, who segregate customer data in “private and identifiable silos”.  “The key word here is identifiable“, writes the author, “which connotes a geographical certainty as well as anything else.  I sometimes wonder if the imagery associated with cloud computing (invariably a jagged line disappearing into some cumulus) does not leave some people with the idea that their precious data is indeed floating in some inchoate container up in the air.”

“If you neglect to provide in your contract that your data remains in a specified jurisdiction, and if you fail to conduct proper due diligence checks on the provider, then you deserve all you get.  Like any risk assessment, it involves weighing cost against other factors; most of these other factors are definable and quantifiable“.

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Joanie Mann Bunny FeetJ

original post March 24, 2011