Web reaction to the new SolidWorks CEO
The web is stirring with a lot of writing about the change in management at SolidWorks:
original press release -Bertrand Sicot Named CEO of Dassault Systèmes SolidWorks Corp.
Jeff Ray blog post – An update on the organizational changes at SolidWorks
Bertrand Sicot blog post – From Bertrand Sicot: a new chapter at SolidWorks
Matt West interview with Jeff and Bertrand – A conversation with Jeff Ray and Bertrand Sicot
Ken Wong – Bertrand Sicot To Write a New Chapter in SolidWorks
TenLinks – Bertrand Sicot Appointed CEO of SolidWorks
CADInsider – SolidWorks CEO is French But It’s Not What You Think
Graphic Speak (Randall Newton) – CEO Transition at SolidWorks Signals End of an Era
Design Product News – Bertrand Sicot Named DS SolidWorks CEO
Machine Design (Leslie Gordon) – Former CEO DS SolidWorks Jeff Ray is promoted; more details via a phone call with Ray and Bertrand Sicot, the new CEO
Desktop Engineering – Bertrand Sicot Named DS SolidWorks CEO
Martyn Day Develop3D – The Death of SolidWorks
Al Dean – New Year, New CEO at SolidWorks
Deelip Menezes – Killing SolidWorks for Dummies, Betrand Sicot Reinforces SolidWorks Cloud Plans, SolidWorks Gets a New CEO
CADXperts – Bertrand Sicot Named as SolidWorks CEO
SolidSmack – Jeff Ray Promoted… Bertrand Sicot Takes Over as SolidWorks CEO. [Interview]
Matt Lorono – New Head at SolidWorks Corp
Jason Raak – Season of Change
Any change at the top of a company this big is not about the technology, it’s about management. Management doesn’t interest me. Management does, however, have an effect on technology, and that’s what I’d like to talk about a little bit. Whether it’s right or wrong, I think Mr. Ray is being moved because he mishandled follow-up to the cloud technology preview. There are things he could have said about the technology that would have made it look truly compelling to all but the most Windows-loving users, instead of a suicidal bubble-taunting unceremonious shove into the abyss.
He could have said that it allows options of OS and hardware (browser-based delivery to Linux, Mac or Windows from local or remote sources). He could have said that it allows options of location and pricing (cloud delivery licensing). He could have said that it may make additional modeling power available to power users (driven by Catia kernel). While these ideas have all been touched on by SW personnel at some point (except the last one), they were not the leading card. In fact, I don’t think anyone at SolidWorks made the effort to make SW V6 look like a good idea. It was more like “We’re gonna shove this down your throat because you’re too stupid to know what you need to run your business”. SolidWorks has done such a terrible job of selling this concept to the point where many long time customers are already actively looking for alternatives. I mean, you’ve got a great set of ideas and a great opportunity to show advantages, and all they could do was press salt into wounds they created and give empty promises that didn’t sound very sincere.
Bernard Charles has been saying for years that interoperability will come through the web. Even the topic of SolidWorks on the cloud had been mentioned years before the SWW2010 technology preview without starting a storm of opposition. The problem was not the concept. The problem was not the technology. The problem was the communication.
The choice of Bertrand (how many times have I misspelled his first name so far? Anyone keeping track?) Sicot, apart from “why” he was picked, seems to have the effect of communicating the consolidation of the French control over SolidWorks. I think it also admits that part of the CEO’s job is to sell large scale ideas, which a salesman is perhaps better prepared to do than an economist. Mr. Sicot’s communications to the SW community at this early stage seem to indicate that he is a far better mass communicator than Mr. Ray, and does not underestimate the difficulty of the technology transition he is about to oversee.
(Oh, and parenthetically, any value associations that you make are things that YOU assign, not me. Let’s be clear that using the word “French” only communicates what is obvious to some but not to all, that Msr. Sicot [see-coh] is French. Mentioning a nationality or linguistic pattern does not equal francophobia, for those who require that sort of clarification.)
I also think Mr. Sicot is important to the reseller channel. The cloud business has not only ruffled users, it has also ruffled resellers. Add to that the growing movement among users to request options that eliminate the reseller. Resellers have been sitting on a very protected nest for a long time, so requiring them to justify their existence could understandably make them nervous. The reseller channel has been partially responsible for SW’s success over the years. Mr. Sicot is probably uniquely positioned to communicate effectively with the resellers.
Finally, as it turns out, Bertrand Has an engineering degree. And built a boat when he was 13. Well, I bought a French bicycle when I was 15, so that makes us practically brothers.
Overall, I don’t see this change of management changing the direction that the SolidWorks software is on at all. The ball is already rolling on that change. I do think it will have a big (positive) affect on communication. I think that the whole paranoia about “the cloud” could have been largely avoided by using less severe language and understanding the customer’s technological needs. While its too early to say anything, really, I am optimistic that we will see days of better communication ahead.
Now all we need is to mobilise the users in the UK to get the prices and terms the same as USA Al 🙂
I wonder how many UK users on Standard would opt for Premium if they could buy at USA levels?
Wow
Bad decision reversed. Customer comes out on top, in getting their views listened to. There’s strength in numbers and making a noise.
I don’t think this would happen with any other CAD vendor because the users aren’t so passionate and perhaps more importantly, so well connected – and vocal.
Nice job to all.. There’s power when there’s a true community.
Al Dean
Matt,
Hopefully the only person you alienated within SolidWorks is Mr. Welch, everyone else should be thanking you. By hosting this discussion you performed a valuable service as a customer advocate. Your actions should help SolidWorks in the long run.
I don’t hold out much hope for Mr. Welch learning any lessons since he created the firestorm and just kept adding fuel to the fire each time he talked down to us, his customers.
I would love to see a copy of the SolidWorks “annual independent satisfaction survey” and the results Mr. Welch keeps referring to, because they sure seem skewed.
Matt-
Congratulations.
Thanks to your leadership, SolidWorks has reacted in a positive way.
SolidWorks, please acknowledge and thank Matt Lombard.
Devon T. Sowell
http://www.3-ddesignsolutions.com
I participated in the SW survey. It did not ask any of the important questions. It seemed like the author of the survey has never used Solidworks.
How nice of Solidworks to not increase the penalty. The existance of a penalty is the real issue. The payment for subscription fees for years missed is another penalty with a different name.
Users who do not maintain the annual subscription are allready dissatisfied with something; Maybe quality, service, value, or performance. These customers may not need much more to convince them to change to another system.
Well, the original complaint was about the new subscription policy, and they’ve reversed it. While I don’t think that’s all they need to do, it’s a start for sure. It’s more than I thought they would.
I guess a “thank you for listening” is in order. I’m sure they are thinking about the rest of this, but you can’t expect them to make decisions on this type of thing in days or even weeks.
Paul
To my recollection, the aforementioned survey was given before the subscription announcement. And since, as far as I know, the survey is sent to customers with current subscriptions they missed a segment of customers. It will be interesting to see if the next surevy generates the same results and if the spin is genuine. The subscription issue for me has been one of Solidworks evolving into a systemic corporate culture, ie Microsoft driven, that says you’ll take what we give you and like it. Look at Vista, if it ain’t fixed don’t break it.
I might just add that most corporations fall into the category of a benevolent dictatorship, hardly a democracy except where the bottom line is concerned. Unfortunately, we will see more corporations following the doctrine of ‘more money for less service’. I hope Solidworks will be different, and overcome the growing pains of transitioning from pusuing market share to having market share.
I have a good working relationship with my VAR, and although Solidworks has lost some of my trust they have not damaged it permantently. I am optimitic that changes will come and they will be well thought out, they will listen to their VAR’s and maybe, just maybe seek a nod from the ‘software holders’ before jumping in with both feet.
jeffro, you bring up a good point. I’ve never seen a survey either, and 10,000 users seems to be an awfully small percentage.
“your overall satisfaction with our support services and value added-resellers continues to increase and has never been higher, according to our annual independent satisfaction survey of nearly 10,000 customers conducted in July.”
Hmm. What percentage of the user base does 10,000 make up? 2%? I’ve been using SolidWorks since the beginning of 1999 and have never seen or participated in the mentioned satisfaction survey. I commend Rich Welch’s efforts, but I haven’t seen the proof yet. My recommendation would be to first get some feedback from the user base before announcing any official change to subscription. I’m sure there’s a lot of number crunching to be done and they aren’t looking to lose revenue for themselves or the VARs. That goes without saying. Let’s be patient and see what they come up with.
Eltron,
To be fair, the letter stated, “… if they had been implemented, would have affected a very small percentage of SolidWorks users”, not that, ““a very small percentage” of us complained”.
That’s pretty much what I expected. Repeal the part of the policy that nobody was complaining about. Notice that none of our suggestions were to lower the fees? Typical corporate wash-over. I find it fitting that Rich claims that they are changing the policy because “a very small percentage” of us complained. I mean, didn’t he claim that the penalties were being raised to make up for a small percentage of users that use support without paying in the first place?
Ah, what do I know anyway…
“Based on valuable input from customers and resellers over the past few weeks, we have decided not to implement these changes. Instead, we are carefully weighing this input and reviewing our overall subscription policies.”
Let’s not twist the knife any more than necessary. SW has capitulated on the penalty fees. Let’s give SW the benefit of the doubt, be patient, and see just how much they have listened and care about the disgruntled user base. At this point I see no need for more gauntlets to be thrown.
I say congratulations to the users who commented here, and especially to Matt for sticking his neck out the furthest. I also commend SW for this response. Time will tell if they are to be further commended, or whether further (more drastic) action is necessary.
Cheers.
Whoa:
“a very small percentage of SolidWorks users”
“your overall satisfaction with our support services and value added-resellers continues to increase”
Whatever.
Look, overall I see this as a positive step — really. It’s very easy for me to see the negatives in things right away, but the fact is that this policy change was repealed (apparently by the noise from the customer base) and that they “are carefully weighing this input and reviewing our overall subscription policies”. Perhaps there is more good news to come? If there really is a comprehensive review of the subscription policies to come, I see it taking more than a few days — particularly if painful to resellers or corporate SolidWorks.
SolidWorks as a corporate entity and viable product has become “pointless” as far as I’m concerned. While I did renew my subscription in 2008, after trying to familiarize myself with SW 2008, I found it be “pointless” and less productive and capable than SW 2007 SP4. Exit SW 2008. Will I try SW 2009? Yes, but I will trash it too if it does not
provide a significant increase in productivity and/or capabiltiy. Will I resubscribe to the MA? Not unless SW adopts most, if not all, of our recent recommendations before the SW 2009 rollout.
SW 2007 is doing a reasonable job for me. Could it be better? You bet, but again, my only reason for upgrading would be for added productivity and capability that I can use to satisfy my clientele. I refuse to pay [again] for
anything less. I’d rather switch than fight.
One thing SW could do to show they really are taking us seriously is to make their product backwards compatible. In so doing they would be saying to everyone “You only have to upgrade if you feel we’ve improved the product.” Wow! Wouldn’t that be refreshing?
****
Functionality is hobbled by the aggressive business plan that forces users into a forward ratcheting version scheme.
Well I would hope that “remaining easy to do business with” includes no longer penalizing people for not wanting to pay to be shafted (on time : ) )? What is this “we will always welcome …” bs.. I guess as long as they are willing to pay, and even pay penalties they will be welcomed back?
Matt, you’re sick of this subject? I think you deserve to be proud of it.. isn’t this Reseller letter partly a result of this blog subject?
Tim
****
I would be proud of it if I actually believed that SW is going to do something that would make users happy. The topic is eating a lot of my time, and frankly is going to earn me a lot of ill will from certain corners. Still, SW continues with their head in the sand and it looks like they do not plan to offer options.