BT

SaaS Architecture Maturity Model

by Steven Robbins on Feb 25, 2008 |
Dharmesh Shah recently wrote about a maturity model of Software as a Service (SaaS) architectures. Drawing on previous thoughts from Gianpaolo Carraro that scalability, multi-tenancy, and customization through configuration are requirements, Dharmesh laid out 5 levels of a SaaS architecture maturity from 'Chaos' to 'Utopia' and provided his thoughts on the economics behind each one.
  • Level 0 (Chaos); Every time you add a new customer, you add a new instance of the software.
  • Level 1 (Managed Chaos): Every customer runs on the same version of the software and any customizations are done via configuration.
  • Level 2 (Multi-Tenant, Highrise): You've got all customers running on a single version of the software, and they're all running essentially on one "instance".
  • Level 3 (Multi-Tenant, Build-Out): This is when you've got multi-tenant, single version of the software model. But, you can scale-out (add buildings at will).
  • Level 4 (Utopia): This is like Level 3, except you've figured out an efficient way to run different versions of the software on different "instances".
Gianpaulo's original maturity model moved from custom version and instance per customer through single versions for all customers but each on their own instances and on to single version with single scalable instance for all customers. Dharmesh added the Utopian level in which you can also effortlessly deploy "sandbox" instances for any given customer.

Dharmesh's main point in discussing the model was:
One of the big advantages for SaaS start ups is the opportunity to be economically efficient along many dimensions through multi-tenancy. But just because the opportunity is there doesn't necessarily mean that every start up is exploiting it equally.

The key behind the economic advantages is an architecture that uses "customization through configuration" and intelligent data partitioning. Without these two elements, you probably won't be able to move past Level 1 (Managed Chaos) and recognize the efficiencies of multi-tenancy.

Noel Huelsenbeck commented that this maturity model might not fit your organization's business model:
Also wouldn't your price point and overall market dictate what level you end up at? There's a small chance an app like Quicken for the Web would make a customization and hence be at level 3/4 but if I'm a Fortune 500 company I would bet Salesforce.com will probably go back to Level 0 to get my business.
Commenter 'brk' made the observation that there are some big risks that come along with the big economics of being high on the SaaS maturity model. As you approach the point where all of your customers are sharing code, hardware (virtual or physical), and administration you run the risk of any small problem with a client can impact your entire client base.

Hello stranger!

You need to Register an InfoQ account or to post comments. But there's so much more behind being registered.

Get the most out of the InfoQ experience.

Tell us what you think

Allowed html: a,b,br,blockquote,i,li,pre,u,ul,p

Email me replies to any of my messages in this thread

One Architect's Managed Chaos... by Colm Smyth

... is another architect's utopia. Having a single version of the software that is customised using configuration is usually the end goal as it prevents having to maintain multiple branches of the source code.

Naturally the more that you are benefiting from scaling a single source product across multiple customers, the more you need to broaden your regression testing for every single new release of that product. Having a single source product means that there can no longer be a "quick" enhancement because every time you expose a customer to a new release, it needs to go through a full integration and regression test. However, the increased cost of regression testing that common code is usually a worthwhile trade-off for the higher quality that all customers benefit from without customer-specific QA cycles.

Re: One Architect's Managed Chaos... by Vasudevan M

This SaaS vs others debate is similar to Apartment vs independent house. Both has itsown advantages. SaaS may be useful primarily for smaller companies who dont need to bother about day2day administration and monitoring with better "perceived" reliability and availability. At the same time, it discounts a closer control in terms of extensibility and security. I dont see many big enterprises going in for SaaS model. Unlike web hosting, the confidentiality, agility and control aspects could deter them.

Re: One Architect's Managed Chaos... by Derek Gilmore

The SaaS architecture you select should be based upon your business model and the target market you are going after. There are several viable models and each are dependent on the target market and the amount of capital you have access to. I dive into this specific issue on my blog www.saaswonk.com

Allowed html: a,b,br,blockquote,i,li,pre,u,ul,p

Email me replies to any of my messages in this thread

Allowed html: a,b,br,blockquote,i,li,pre,u,ul,p

Email me replies to any of my messages in this thread

3 Discuss

Educational Content

General Feedback
Bugs
Advertising
Editorial
InfoQ.com and all content copyright © 2006-2013 C4Media Inc. InfoQ.com hosted at Contegix, the best ISP we've ever worked with.
Privacy policy
BT