We have seen a number of recent prospective clients come to us after having less than satisfactory experience with the original bpm implementation team they selected. In none of these cases was the software poorly selected -- it just was not implemented professionally.
The interesting fact is that none of the consulting firms involved actually formally "quit" on the client. What they did do, though, is continually change their assigned consultants, increasingly make their talent hard to find or willing to come onsite, and gently push the client away. While some of these clients might have been among the more difficult variety, they still deserved to see their implementation completed professionally.
We know of one consulting firm that has a shortage of experienced implementation consultants, so their senior architect-level talent drifts from one "great design", but unfinished implementation to the next.
Not to say Strafford has never had a difficult client or finished 100% of our implementations, but we do work very hard to make sure every client is a happy one. We also make a point of ensuring every prospective clients meets one of the principal owners of Strafford. That way they know we are as invested in their success as they are.
Article has
0 comments.
Click To Read/Write Comments
We have witnessed a significant trend in the last 6-9 months and thought to share it -- Oracle Hyperion is taking market share.
I know this might be hard to believe, since Hyperion was the market leader before the Oracle acqusition, but witness events of the last year.
- SAP acquires OutlookSoft, SRC & Cartesis - confuses market - We hear from many folks, both existing SAP clients and not, that a mixed message has come from SAP in the last 6+ months as it digests the acquisitions. Many folks appear to have trepidation about the upcoming merger of these disparate technologies into a consolidated package orginally due in 2009, now 2010. Not that OutlookSoft or Cartesis are fading, in fact implementations are probably steady or rising, but many of these implementations are existing SAP as we are just not seeing them elsewhere.
- IBM acquires Cognos which had acquired TM1/Applix - We haven't yet figured this one out and it could be that IBM has internalized the Cognos/Applix salesforces in that they are selling to existing IBM customers - time will tell. One large client we worked with ruled Cognos out right after the product manager (in a sales call to this client) announced TM1/Applix would be the core database of the future. Not that they did not like TM1, they just did not want to buy a technology that would go through such sudden reengineering right after their implementation.
- MPC loses momentum - a former dominant technology, many feel Comshare MPC, now badged PM, has been lost in the shuffle. Gartner punished them on their "Magic Quadrant" when Infor acquired GEAC although there was absolutely no change in the software. The newest release, Infor PM10, is a strong package and warrants inclusion in your evaluation process
- Microsoft buys Yahoo (or not) - some might think a recession is the time to shine for Microsoft with lower initial price points on software in this area. We simply have not seen them in many serious evaluations, although a few clients have allowed them through the first round only. At the same time, we know of underfunded IT shops in a few firms that are pushing initiatives in this area. Sound similar to how MS SQL got its start?
All of this technology has been rolled into larger companies that do not disclose detailed data at the product line level. However, we have more than anecdotal evidence that Oracle's strategy of buying Hyperion and relying upon that single acquisition for a strategy in Performance Management is working.
Article has
0 comments.
Click To Read/Write Comments
Thought folks might be interested in this upcoming seminar, particularly if they leverage OutlookSoft:
Webinar: Thursday, November 20, 2008
Time: 1:00pm EST
Invest your time in a short webinar designed to:
- Discuss options for improvement, including:
- Upgrading to SAP BPC 5.1
- What is coming with SAP (release 7, 10, etc.)
- What you should know about SAP BCS, Cartesis and SRC - other SAP products that have overlapping functionality with OutlookSoft
- Alternative technologies (Cognos, Hyperion, etc.)
- Review the features/functions available in every option
- Discuss the business benefits of making change
- Quick case study examples of Strafford clients that have pursued these options
At the end of this webinar you should feel comfortable understanding ALL the options you have as a current OutlookSoft 4.x client to improve functionality in this critical area.
Enroll Here
Article has
0 comments.
Click To Read/Write Comments
In our work to help firms pick Performance Management technology, we have seen a resurgence of an old trend - the loudest voice wins.
This phenomenon is most often found when company leaders assemble a financial systems "software buying group" with loose leadership. Normally this group attempts to work together, building requirements, interviewing software vendors, watching various demos all with the best of intentions. Then they start to suffer from direction by the loud folks. The interesting part is that often the louder ones haven't been listening much -- so they can have the least idea of what their company should be doing.
Of course, it is never our attempt to make a decision for our clients, but certainly to help them find the best decision. Thus we tend to work to make all voices heard -- often the quietest folks are the most perceptive.
Article has
0 comments.
Click To Read/Write Comments
How important is better visibility to financial results in a downturn? Potential answer - We work this process -- our business has never been stronger. Probably a better question -- How does better visibility prevent the economic morass we are in today?
Too many firms have allowed the reporting of their financial results to decay into manual process. Their best financial minds waste countless hours and days jockeying numbers around spreadsheets. Worse yet, analytics from these results are overanalyzed with no return on investment of time. It is not that the data is useless, there can be no intelligence in data delivered with such poor platforms.
Unfortunately even those that invest sometimes get it wrong. We talk regularly with folks that have invested, yet have done nothing more than try to automate complex process resulting in even more trouble.
They key in our mind is to strike the right balance between process automation and allowing intelligence to enter the process. Your best minds need to own the data, not be owned by the data. Invest in your company's future. Get your smart Finance folks back in the business.
Article has
0 comments.
Click To Read/Write Comments
digg it |
reddit |
del.icio.us |
StumbleUpon
Tags: hyperion, oracle, IBM, SAP, Cognos, TM1, Planning, Applix, OutlookSoft, Analyst, Contributor, Controller
We recently attended a Cognos demonstration at a client. At their request, the future of the Cognos technology stack in the financial area was addressed. Because we have previously posted in this area, I thought an update was in order.
According to the IBM employee making the presentation, they are excited to have TM1 in their arsenal and plan to make it a central database of their suite. This covers not only the budgeting/forecasting area (Cognos Planning), but also the consoldiation area (Cognos Controller).
An interesting, but not totally unexpected, development considering the pros/cons of the options available.
We feel this is the right approach, although it does validate the long-held belief of firms such as Hyperion and OutlookSoft that a central data model is critical to success in this area.
While folks can look forward to seeing this vision achieved, announcements of major product changes at the architecture level can be tricky. We continue to watch this development and will update folks when we have more of interest not already in the public arena...
Article has
0 comments.
Click To Read/Write Comments
With all the consolidation in the financial systems area, many folks are wondering whether the tool they leverage has a future. This can be an interesting question, depending most upon your satisfaction and your (new) vendor's plans. Of course, competitive software companies will be quick to point out potential roadblocks to continued use of your (now old feeling) software package.
One thing Strafford provides to our clients is a "HealthCheck" of an existing application, with a review of vendor plans (focusing on what is most likely to happen vs what the gossip is). Often this might include an active discussion of potential options. What we find with clients is most often the application is doing what it was bought for, but their might be opportunities to grow a new application into additional areas. That's often where the best ROI is for replacing a legacy system.
Article has
0 comments.
Click To Read/Write Comments
Whether to buy tools for financial reporting and budgeting/forecasting from the incumbent vendor is a question increasingly raised by folks we work with. The real question should be -- "At what point do we buy the brand name that we have existing investments with?"
For us, the issue centers on the short/long term benefits and the costs of any selection. Certainly, a red flag should be raised when there is lack of functionality in key areas. However, functionality is sometimes centered in the pros/cons and always subject to personal opinion. At the same time, many companies ask their finance teams to "do more with less" in order to lessen perceived "total solution costs" and benefit from "future integration".
With any investment in business process, the vendor is a key question. We insist our clients ensure integration will occur. Buying software integrated only at the "brand name" can be a dangerous activity.
Article has
3 comments.
Click To Read/Write Comments
We have received many requests lately from clients to please help them evaluate their Citrix environment. Many clients have struggled with poor performance and/or connectivity issues and are not sure how to fix the problem(s). There are several areas that we would evaluate for you to provide you with information on running an optimum environment for your Hyperion Enterprise application. Below is a list of some of the areas we review when doing a Citrix evaluation:
- What are the specifications of the server(s)? Are they robust enough for the current environment you are trying to operate?
- How many users are typically logged into the system? This number is a major factor in determining how your Citrix environment should be set up.
- How is your network installed? What is the location of your servers vs. the location of the users on the network? How many are connecting internationally vs. domestically?
- Is your farm load-balanced? Has it been testing? Does it work correctly?
- How are your Hyperion applications published? There are optimum ways to publish the application in order to provide the best connectivity.
- What are the configurations of the servers - both application and Citrix? There are certain configurations that should be set that will prevent your application from data corruption and optimize performance.
- How are your backups being done? Is that process interfering or effecting your environment in any way? Enterprise is not a 24x7 application, therefore, typical IT backup procedures cannot be used.
- Are you using Hyperion Retrieve, VBA Retrieve or Analyst? Which one should you be using? How should it be used properly? I can share with you the best practices when using these products.
- Lastly, have you possibly outgrown Hyperion Enterprise? There is a more robust product called Hyperion Financial Management (HFM) that is also available for financial consolidation. Both Enterprise and HFM are excellent products, however, they do have different benefits.
If you are currently struggling with any of these issues or you have asked yourself any of these questions, please don't hesitate to contact us. We would be very happy to assist you in making sure your environment is not only highly functional but also highly efficient. Having an efficient consolidation system is a competitive advantage.
Article has
2 comments.
Click To Read/Write Comments
It seems hard to believe that less than 10 years ago we had to start every presentation to a potential client with "What is Business Intelligence?".
In those days, we were first educating our clients on why they needed to make investments in this area. Only if they "got it", would we step into understanding their business and the underlying requirements and eventually determine and justify the project based on an ROI.
This took a lot of work to do. Some clients quickly "got it", while others took a few more years before they eventually did.
Now, looking at the consolidated landscape of the BI/BPM industry, and the full acceptance of "BI" and "BPM/CPM/EPM", it isn't a question of whether to invest in BI, but rather with whom.
Yes, it is refreshing not to have to explain the benefits of a BI Platform anymore. It truly has allowed us to focus on getting the job done for our clients.
But what does this mean for firms looking to implement a Business Intelligence solution who have been approached by a traditional ERP VAR of either Oracle or SAP?
It means they shouldn't be fooled by a generalist attempting to sell into this new space. We have seen many failed attempts from firms looking to enter this space without a solid background in the functional and technical expertise required to make it work.
Yes, there is good and bad when it comes to market acceptance. BI is now a generally accepted "makes sense to invest in" technology. But the same issues that have driven the need for specialists in this space continue to exist. The need for consultants to understand not just the bits and bytes, but the the real practical business drivers behind the effort and the project management skills required to gain full acceptance.
BI Projects are very different than your typical top down IT project. For example, they need to be tuned to end user needs in an iterative approach. It takes many design modification cycles with the actual report to determine what will truly be best for the organization to use.
At first glance, any new report or analytic application looks great. But the reality is, the sizzle wears off and without the proper iterative design up front, these systems do not produce the measures and underlying support (detail) data to support change and quickly lose their luster.
This is a just one area of the design and rollout that requires persons very familiar with BI project development to be involved.
OK, I'll get off my soap box now.
Article has
1 comments.
Click To Read/Write Comments