Talk:Siebel Systems

message: Its been 12 years from when Oracle brought out Siebel Systems (as of the time of this comment), yet people are using this article to add new features, and builds about the System its self. Should we fork this, and discuss / add details about the System its self into a new article? Such as Siebel CRM? --Amckern (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siebel as a System 

message: I assume CRM stands for Customer relationship management????  --71.3.236.196 15:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CRM 

message: This section is to introduce of Siebel Technical components.  Unless, someone can direct me to the right section to talk and discuss about this.
Manmdo 14:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical Architecture 

message: I think that we should change the tone of the "Marketspace" section to simply the facts. Right now, it sounds in tone a lot more like analysis, which is not as encyclopedic as I would like. -- PinkCake 14:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now done the re-write. -- PinkCake 23:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Product history 

message: Integration into Oracle's Fusion might be worth mentioning for the version after 8.0 - Protector of the Truth 11:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- PinkCake 23:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I am NOT going to point the "future" tag on the article. One rather unsurprising forward-looking statement does justify a headline tag. It merely assists the reader in finding the obvious piece of non-Sieble Oracle software that is likely to be integrated with.  It is confusing enought as it is: Oracle's product line is huge and it would not surprise me if Fusion gets a new brand name by the time that the integration and release are accomplished. -- PinkCake 23:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Releases 

message: This section has origional research & POV issues; it needs of a major re-write. -- 12.106.111.10 19:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "CRM market leader" section 

message: * As taken from the article main page - The gradual decrease in the dominance of the Siebel product has been attributed to many factors but perhaps two overriding aspects contributed to the demise of the company. Firstly, Siebel was a CRM application and little else. Whilst it was a powerful engine it is a fact that Siebel never really offered a true HR or Financials application of their own. This meant that most if not all Siebel projects contained a significant integration aspect. As with most IT related projects, integration can be the most difficult of all IT implementation aspects and indeed, many Siebel projects turned out to be significantly more expensive in the long run. The second aspect is interestingly related to the flexibility of the Siebel application. As the Siebel application was infinitely customizable, practically anything was possible. The functionality of the application was constrained only by the capability of the configuration consultant performing the implementation. This meant that if a client were to ask or inquire about availability of a function, the answer would usually be 'Yes'. This lack of a constraining framework resulted in implementation projects running for years and often suffering incredible scope creep.
* Where Siebel has suffered, its former competitors have flourished. Oracle and SAP have forged ahead in the CRM marketplace. Curiously it is not because their products are better, more flexible or more powerful than Siebel. It is simply because their products often prove easier to implement and 'integrate'. Both SAP and Oracle offer Finance and HR applications and this fact has allowed them to push their CRM offering to their existing client base. Oracle and SAP CRM applications are naturally integrated with their own base ERP applications thus the difficult integration aspects of implementation projects were hugely reduced. SAP and Oracle effectively now push a 'suite of products' with CRM being a capability within that 'suite'. This homogeneous approach has served to constrain the functionality of both offerings with clients being steered down the route of 'standard functionality' and 'out of the box' capability. This curiously has resulted in more successful implementations because the existence of a fixed functional framework has served to constrain the scope of implementations. The design approach required for Siebel implementations was to design and wrap the system around the business process - this proved too expensive. Conversely some SAP and in particular Oracle implementations require the business process to be altered or re-engineered to follow a 'standard' one already built into the application. Gaps are managed by various configuration options and very limited customization. The result is a design and implementation within a fairly rigid framework and from this an implementation can become significantly easier to manage. Oracle and others have succeeded where Siebel failed. Siebel was the victims of their own success in a way. The limitless flexibility, capability and configurability of Siebel meant that the implementation projects became just too big, too complicated and went on for too long.
* No citing of references and also original research as well as being POV - Protector of the Truth 16:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Statements 

message: Why is there a giant Oracle banner? It makes this page look like an advertisement for Oracle.
65.4.142.149 10:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giant Oracle Banner? 

message: I notice there is only Oracle information in the Siebel info box, and no mention of the Siebel founding date, key people, headquarters, etc. This is an article about the former company Siebel Systems. Readers can get Oracle info in another info box in an article called Oracle Corporation. It does not matter here that the company Siebel was later purchased by the company Oracle. (Compare to other articles of companies acquired by Oracle, i.e. JD Edwards or PeopleSoft.)  I see that this article used to have a big Oracle logo also. Unless there is objection, we need to remove the Oracle information from the info box and replace it with Siebel information.  If you have that information, please do so.
prhartcom (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Only Oracle info in the info box? 

message: :Image:Oracle Logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Oracle Logo.jpg

message: I think Siebel's CRM business is under severe threat from Salesforce.com.  I think it might be good for the article to mention this dynamic.  CRM is a rapidly evolving field, and there is thus the potential for great disruptions.  I think some well-sourced material in this area would be a good addition to this article.  --Westwind273 (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salesforce.com 

message: On the right hand side info column the revenue is given as:
Revenue ▲ $1111111.799 billion USD (2005) 
which is a mistake
please rectify it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.16.180.5 (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone had corrected the revenue figure, but the rest of the figures (Op income and Net income) made little sense after the correction, they were considerably larger than revenue. Unable to find accurate figures online for 2005, I reverted to 2004 figures. Their source is Siebel's 10-K filing to the SEC. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1006835/000100683505000012/0001006835-05-000012-index.htm 2005 figures do not seem to be available on the SEC site except for the quarterly figures (10-Q) until September 30, 2005, due to being acquired by Oracle. Destroyer71 (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in Revenue 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/history2/57/Siebel-Systems-Inc.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Minima© (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed