SaaS transitions are driven by vendor priorities rather than customer demand
Enterprise software is undergoing a shift, and it’s not being steered by customers. The move from on-premises systems to cloud-based software-as-a-service (SaaS) platforms is a decision largely being made by vendors. That includes companies like Epicor. They’ve now made it clear: if you want updates, innovation, or even long-term support, you’ll need to be on their Epicor Cloud, hosted on Microsoft Azure. Their legacy on-premises platforms, Kinetic, Prophet 21, BisTrack, are officially on the clock.
This shift isn’t happening because customers asked for it. It’s happening because vendors need to modernize their own operations. SaaS helps vendors reduce costs. More importantly, it helps them move faster, rolling out updates, new features, AI capabilities, bug fixes, and security patches without supporting different legacy versions for dozens or hundreds of clients.
This is how software companies scale better. One codebase. One platform. Everyone on the same version. The precision and speed of continuous deployment become possible when you control the base architecture end-to-end. That control, however, is now being transferred away from the buyer and consolidated with the vendor.
Executives need to understand the strategic motive here. Vendors aren’t abandoning on-prem to punish users. They’re chasing agility, consistency, and higher recurring margins. But your organization may not have asked for this trade. This is a recalibration of power, one where the buyer must adapt or risk being unsupported.
Centralized SaaS models enhance vendor efficiency but introduce buyer risks
Centralizing software through SaaS platforms gives vendors tangible operational gains. It makes their support teams leaner. It removes code version conflicts. It shortens rollout cycles. But while this is clearly good business strategy for the vendor, the picture doesn’t always look great from the customer’s side of the table.
Companies now have to accept dependencies they didn’t plan for. You give up control, over patch timing, infrastructure choices, and in some cases, even data movement. Latency becomes an issue. Because you can’t control the infrastructure path anymore. If your operations are latency-sensitive, like automated production lines, this becomes non-trivial.
Cloud outages aren’t theoretical either. They happen. The last 12 months delivered some high-profile downtime in major cloud environments, reminding everyone that “cloud doesn’t equal zero risk.” If your vendor pushes updates that break your integrations, or your regulatory compliance is jeopardized by a change to data residency policies, you’re the one left to solve the fallout.
For highly regulated industries or companies with strict uptime or compliance requirements, this shift can feel less like innovation and more like forced compromise. The consistency and speed that SaaS offers the vendor often comes at the price of flexibility and control for the enterprise.
At the board level, this deserves attention. Tech leaders need to run honest assessments. Can your critical business processes run reliably under another party’s infrastructure, timeline, and governance? Can your IT team adapt its execution maps and risk frameworks to account for less autonomy?
Ultimately, while SaaS delivers real efficiencies for vendors, it’s not a one-size-fits-all win for customers. You must look at how it changes your operating position, technically, financially, and strategically.
Rigorous evaluation of operational and compliance factors is essential before transitioning
Moving to SaaS isn’t just a technical adjustment, it shifts how your organization manages compliance, security, performance, and support. Too many enterprises are treating these transitions as basic IT upgrades. That’s a mistake. For C-suite leaders, the migration is a structural change in how risk, responsibility, and operational availability are handled. If you misjudge it, the costs can be high, both financially and operationally.
Start with compliance. When your software moves to a vendor-managed SaaS platform like Epicor Cloud on Microsoft Azure, your organization’s compliance posture doesn’t automatically transfer with it. You’re operating on infrastructure you didn’t select, under settings and parameters defined by the vendor. Questions like data residency, sovereignty, and regulatory compatibility must be addressed upfront, not after the migration. If your enterprise operates in a highly regulated region or sector, you need clarity on where data is stored, how it’s isolated, and whether the vendor contract guarantees adherence to required frameworks.
Then there’s performance. Many SaaS systems are architected with centralized efficiency in mind, not localized responsiveness. If you have users in global locations, shop-floor automation, or latency-sensitive systems, you can’t rely on vendor averages when it comes to network pathing or application responsiveness. Run your own performance tests using real environments, production-level workloads, not test scripts. And don’t assume your vendor will provide meaningful service level agreements on latency or responsiveness unless you demand them.
Support is also structurally different. In SaaS environments, the vendor owns the resolution timeline. You can’t roll back patches or take administrative control when issues arise. So, you must understand the new escalation process thoroughly: response times, downtime procedures, and remedies if mission-critical workflows are impacted. Ask how the vendor communicates during outages. Ask what the fallback options are if a platform update breaks a custom integration. The support model has changed, which means your internal processes have to change with it.
You’re not just buying software here. You’re restructuring who owns operational risk. That requires detailed due diligence, led at the highest levels of your organization.
Preparation for contingency and alternative solutions is critical
Some SaaS models will fit your business. Others will not. If the offering you’re being pushed into doesn’t meet critical technical, compliance, or performance standards, you need a fallback strategy. Don’t wait for problems to emerge before deciding what your options are.
Assess alternative architectures now. That may involve hybrid deployment models where sensitive data remains on-premises. It could mean working with specialized SaaS providers who offer more flexible compliance or latency customization. In some cases, it’s worth considering managed private cloud or open-source ERP platforms that give your team more control over the infrastructure and support environment. The market has viable paths, but you need to invest time in evaluating them before the contract pressure hits.
One thing is non-negotiable: data portability. Ensure your contracts include clear, enforceable terms for extracting all of your data in standard formats should you decide to transition away later. That includes not only the raw data but also supporting metadata, configurations, and integration mappings. Business continuity isn’t maintained through loyalty, it’s maintained through leverage.
Also, plan for disaster scenarios. If your SaaS vendor has a prolonged outage, or worse, a total failure, you need operational continuity guarantees in place. Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs) and Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs) must be part of the vendor conversation. Ask how they isolate your data, test backup mechanisms, and ensure operational viability even in worst-case cloud scenarios. These aren’t pessimistic questions, they’re due diligence.
C-suite leaders should treat vendor transitions as dynamic and conditional, not final decisions stamped in ink. Stay adaptive. Keep your options open. The right SaaS fit should support your flexibility and growth, not introduce risk you can’t manage.
Proactive governance and new skill sets are vital for success in the SaaS era
Migrating to SaaS changes more than infrastructure, it redefines how your organization operates, governs, and scales its digital environment. This isn’t just a matter for the IT team. It reshapes financial models, contract structures, data ownership expectations, and risk distribution. For enterprises that want to succeed over the long term, a static approach won’t work. You need to raise the quality of your internal oversight and upgrade your operational discipline.
Start with governance. When a vendor manages your application stack, what you gain in managed upgrades and uniformity, you can lose in transparency. That includes how your data is handled, how performance metrics are tracked, and how incidents are reported and resolved. If your organization is used to direct access and full visibility, be prepared to implement new controls. Your legal, compliance, and security teams must be equipped to review cloud-specific contract language. Your vendor relationships must support more than uptime guarantees, they must provide clear auditability and terms for business-critical exceptions.
Next, focus on skills. Running internal systems and managing external SaaS providers are fundamentally different jobs. Your internal teams need to know how to conduct risk reviews, negotiate contracts with cloud-specific clauses, monitor real-time vendor performance, and ensure data integrity across distributed environments. In many cases, these functions will shift from hands-on technical roles to hybrid positions blending legal, operations, procurement, and cybersecurity expertise. If you’re not actively building this capability, you’re likely falling behind.
Finally, revisit your vendor strategy. In a SaaS-dominated market, lock-in is no longer just a technical limitation, it’s a strategic risk. You must question whether your organization has options if vendor terms shift or platforms evolve in a direction that no longer fits your business. This applies not only to functions like ERP or CRM, but across finance, HR, manufacturing, and supply chain systems. The tools that used to give you advantage are now subject to fast-paced vendor-driven change.
Success in this environment isn’t about being aggressive or overly cautious, it’s about being technically aware, operationally adaptive, and highly prepared. The organizations that invest early in upgrading their governance and capability to navigate SaaS complexity will gain long-term resilience and leverage. For C-suite leaders, that’s where the advantage is built.
Key executive takeaways
- Vendor-led SaaS acceleration: Vendors are phasing out on-prem software to streamline operations and boost margins, not because of customer demand. Leaders should review vendor roadmaps and strengthen internal alignment before being locked into disadvantageous cloud transitions.
- Efficiency vs. enterprise risk: Centralized SaaS improves vendor agility but increases risk exposure for buyers, from outages to compliance blind spots. Leaders should balance the efficiency pitch with a clear audit of control loss, performance limits, and new dependencies.
- Compliance and performance due diligence: Shifting to SaaS changes the regulatory and operational landscape. Executives must mandate rigorous compliance validation and real-world latency testing before migration to avoid unexpected disruptions.
- Always plan for a fallback: Not all SaaS models fit operational, compliance, or strategic needs. Leaders should evaluate alternative architectures and ensure contracts support data portability, disaster recovery, and vendor exit strategies.
- Adapt strategy and skillsets: Moving to managed SaaS requires stronger governance and new vendor management capabilities. Executives must upskill legal, IT, and procurement teams to lead contract negotiations, safeguard critical data, and maintain resilience.
