Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 1206

Declaration of Nargues Motamed in Support of 1202 Statement Joint Statement in Support of Evidentiary Issues filed byOracle International Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-0059, # 2 Exhibit A-6329-1, # 3 Exhibit A-0367, # 4 Exhibit A-5042, # 5 Exhibit A-5997, # 6 Exhibit A-6042-1, # 7 Exhibit A-6205-1, # 8 Exhibit A-5193, # 9 Exhibit A-5995, # 10 Exhibit A-5058, # 11 Exhibit A-5002-1, # 12 Exhibit A, # 13 Exhibit B, # 14 Exhibit C, # 15 Exhibit D, # 16 Exhibit E, # 17 Exhibit F, # 18 Exhibit G, # 19 Exhibit H, # 20 Exhibit I, # 21 Exhibit J, # 22 Exhibit K, # 23 Exhibit L, # 24 Exhibit M, # 25 Exhibit N, # 26 Exhibit PTX 0008, # 27 Exhibit PTX 0014, # 28 Exhibit PTX 0161, # 29 Exhibit O, # 30 Exhibit P, # 31 Exhibit Q, # 32 Exhibit R, # 33 Exhibit PTX 4809, # 34 Exhibit PTX 4819, # 35 Exhibit PTX 0012, # 36 Exhibit PTX 0024, # 37 Exhibit PTX 0960, # 38 Exhibit PTX 7028, # 39 Exhibit S, # 40 Exhibit T, # 41 Exhibit U, # 42 Exhibit V, # 43 Exhibit W, # 44 Exhibit PTX 8040, # 45 Exhibit PTX 2582, # 46 Exhibit X, # 47 Exhibit Y, # 48 Exhibit PTX 8112, # 49 Exhibit PTX 8111, # 50 Exhibit PTX 8108)(Related document(s) 1202 ) (Howard, Geoffrey) (Filed on 8/2/2012)

From:

Brian Mitchell [[e-mail]]

Sent:

Tuesday, February 20, 2007 3:09 AM

To:

[e-mail]

Subject: Starhub decision point

Charles,

We have now had a number of discussions with Starhub, and the messages continue to be a little mixed. It would appear
that they have quite a strong desire to go to SAP but a financially compe.lling offer may win the day.
We are back to Peoplesoft Financials as the solution, but there are four gaps in our solution that SAP does not have. The
delta in price needs to reflect the value that Starhub see in this additional functionality.
I have copied below some further background from the account team. Clearly more engagement than the senior
management may have known about. I will fix the last of the points an account management.
Under "Proposed response" is the decision point for us. To go to a ULA discussion is too premature and it would be two
months before we could get there. It also is a License discussion, not a Services one, when the majority of the cost issue
now is services. So point One below is what we think this will take. Probable case $750K, worst case $1 m. If we gave the
License for zero, then it would be a cost to the License P&L of between $550k and $800k.
If we want to do this, and keep SAP out we should assume the worst case outcome and work for a better result.
Whilst this is a big hit on License expense I think we should take it if it stops SAP. Given they have Peoplesoft HR, Oracle
DB, and about to place a big order for Siebel CRM, making this an all Oracle shop is important. We can then move to a
ULA.
Appreciate your thoughts.
Regards brian

Brian
Following receipt of Charles email toStarhub.Natasak.FI.ank. Andrew and myself reviewed learnings from the past
engagement with Starhub and the proposed response to Starhub based on Charles' email. We propose a con call to walk
through this. Suggestecl timet 0:00 am SG time Tuesday 20 February. Please advice if this hme suits or an alternative.

The Starhub GFO has stated he is open to continuing with Peoplesoft financials if it is commercially attractive. The current
Peoplesaft proposal to Starhub is for:
,. USD$0.2M license
• USD$1.3M OCS
Our inteiligence late 2006 told us the SAP proposal was $O.5M higher than Oracle's but they subsequently went back to
their .implementation partners to reduce their bid further. We do not know the vaiue of SAP's current proposal.
We see two options for our response to Starhub:
1.

Reduce the current USD$1.5M license and OCS bid. We believe a tota.l cost of USD$0.5M for license and OGS
would be very attractive to Starhub, whilst USD$1 M would not be enough of a difference to move away from what
they see as a functi.onally superior SAP soilltion. Therefore we need to go back to them with a figure between $0.5

Confidential Information

ORCL00361642
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No.

4:07-cv-01658 PlliIEDL

DEFENDANT Exhibit No.
Date Admitted:

A-6086
_

By:

_

Nicole Heuennan, Deputy Clerk

2.

and $1.0M.
Chan~1e the ~1ame on SAP by proposinrJ an ELA/ULA, incorporating ERP, CRM and Technology. The difficulty here
is that for both the CRM and Technology portions, Starhub has not as yet finalised their future architecture and
therefore configuration and sizing for Cm,,1 and Technology has not been determined at this stage. If we wanted to
propose a ULA we could still go ahead based on an employee or revenue metric but we stand the risk of not fully
monetising tile value of the ULA grant to Starhub.

Past Engagement
Five key issues regarding the past engagement with Starhub have emerged:
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Starhub had a nerJative opinion of Peoplesoft when Oracle took over Peoplesoft. This was prirnarily around the
level of product support available in the region and the cost of maintenance. A secondary issue was related to the
lifespan of tlleir Vantive CRM solution. Action taken: CVC visit organised Marcil 2005 to meet ,John Wookey to
discuss Fusion strategy and CRM strategy. Also an Oracle cross-LOB (Sales, Apps pre-sales, Tech pre-sales,
Support) briefing was carried out with Starhub senior management in October 2005. Starhub subsequently placed
an order for $1 M technology November 2005 and presented Oracle with an LOI statinrJ their intent to proceed with
Peoplesoft CRM.
Starhub announced in March 2006 their intention to consolidate their two financial systems (cable and mobile)
Peoplesoft and SAP competing. After evaluation, Peoplesoft was seen to need extensive customisation vs. SAP
off-tile-shelf ability to meet Starhub's requirements. Starhub also raised concerns about limited upgrade path for
Peoplesoft financials. Action taken :CVC visit organised September 2006 to discuss future roadmap of Peoplesoft
financials and ability to meet Starhub's requirements. Starhub left that meeting satisfied Peoplesoft could lTIeet their
requirements. Oracle Singapore team found out on further analysis that Peoplesoft could not meet Starhub's
requirements in 4 critical areas. The analysis by the Singapore team (license, pre-sales, OCS) and and feedback to
Starhub took 6 weeks. During this time tilere was constant communication with the Starhub technical team but no
communication with Starhub senior management on work being carried out.
Starhub's negative perception on the level of technical support for Peoplesoft in ASEAN was further reinforced as it
became apparent to them Oracle did not have sufficient Peoplesoft Financials pre-sales and consulting resources
in the region. Action taken: A cross LOB team consisting of OCS, Pre Sales, Sales lead by the ACE team
(primarily Andy Loh) was forr'led. nle team was formed to specifically address Starhub's technical questions in
our proposai. On tile issue of the lack of Peoplesoft Financials enabled consulting resources in tile region, OCS
has drawn in Hexaware. We have also discussed with Starhub the opportunity to use KE Systems in Malaysia,
Sierra (a trans ASEAN partner) and TechMahendra.
Work done with Starhub across the account has been more extensive than senior management at
Starllub understood and as communicated with Charles and Brian, especially in the last 12 months. Action: The
need for direct and continuous engagement with Starhub senior management to be set up, not just communicating
with the project team.
Oracle missed an opportunity to change the game on SAP for the Financials deal because each sales unit (ERP,
CRM, Tech, OGS) focused on meeting Hleir individual goals, and no one sales team looked at wrlat is in Hle best
interest of Oracle as a whole and more importantly has the authority to execute a decision that could mean
disadvantaging one sales team in the short term to ensure Oracie as a whole remained strong in the account. A
prime example is GRM and Tech sales teams want to pursue their current deals in Stal"hub separately, rather than
structuring a ULA that included ERP,CRM & Technology. In reviewing the account history, sales teams objectives
where coordinated until the organisational change beginning FY07.

Confidential Information

ORCL00361643