Are you satisfied with your ERP?

Manufacturing business IT users, while happier with packaged ERP (enterprise resource planning) systems than they were in 1999, still say they’re falling short of expectations. Too many users remain less than happy particularly with ease of system upgrades, e-business and ‘collaborative commerce’ functionality and – the bottom line – business benefits. These are key findings of a survey of 531 end users by Benchmark Research, completed in April. The research suggests the problem has relatively little to do with the software – although there are variances across the vendors – but more to do with the ERP companies’ and users’ staff, culture and business and systems understanding. Benchmark also cites unrealistic implementation time scales, poorly defined system expectations, project slippage, poor project management and failures to appreciate and articulate scale of change as leading to installations not being achieved on time, or on budget. These in turn contribute to cutbacks in user training, and failures to resolve people and business issues. Most striking, manufacturers across the board using ‘off the shelf’ packaged ERP are significantly happier than those using heavily modified systems. Benchmark confirms received wisdom – companies are invariably far better off using ‘vanilla’ solutions and adapting business processes to them, than customising packages to suit existing operational procedures, no matter how sophisticated or specific. The report is detailed. Benchmark classifies ERP packages and outcomes according to three user categories: SMEs running systems from Exel, Infor:Swan, K3, Syspro (McGuffie Brunton and Information Engineering), Sage and Fourth Shift; mid-market users on Baan, Epicor, Geac, QAD, InterBiz (now owned by SSA GT), Max (ditto), Intentia, IFS, Sanderson and Mapics; and large corporates with systems from JD Edwards, Oracle, SAP and SSA GT. It examines system effectiveness in four key areas: implementation, software capability, user support and business benefits. In all cases, larger companies and users of heavily modified systems were least satisfied. Both groups said they experienced significant difficulties during upgrades and were less happy with running costs and, notably, their e-business functionality. Looking at implementation, for example, the report finds problems with vendors and users. “ERP implementations are not simply about software; they are frequently about fundamental changes to the business itself,” says the report. If change is not understood or catered for, failure is difficult to avert. Cost of implementation is another issue: anecdotal evidence suggests blame lies with poor specification and project creep. Bottom line recommendations worth heeding here are: agree the cost, scope and time scale; determine ways of adhering to them; identify likely issues early; and spend more time on training. On functionality, most users say core ERP modules, like stock control, financials and scheduling are fine. They’re also positive about their systems’ effectiveness in improving management control, reducing stock levels and improving delivery schedules – all the usual. And they’re largely happy with stability and scalability. The bug bears are ease of upgrade, e-business availability, running costs and ability of some systems to adapt to changing needs. What’s interesting here is the clear correlation with teams that have modified their ERP. Users report this increases charges and longer term discourages upgrades – which means when it’s done, it’s harder and more costly and, users fall behind – also explaining the e-business complaints. The full report, which provides detailed and direct comparisons between vendors, as seen through the eyes of companies implementing their systems, is available to end users from Benchmark Research.