Corporate/Business Performance Management (CPM) products are not identical. They have many similarities and are designed to solve similar problems: Centralized reporting, one truth, automated consolidation, centralized budget collection. But they vary in price, features, and ease of implementation.
I recently worked on an implementation that was sold by the software company as a "streamlined implementation". A streamlined implementation uses standardized formats and processes. It counts on a large number of hours of internal support and commitment from the client company. This got the CPM software in the door. This was good because it is a really good software solution for them. And fortunately for the client they drew me as their consultant for the actual implementation.
The sales force had not understood that the company actually had seven general ledger databases, instead of one, they had not understood that the general ledger accounts were not identical. No one but the actual person doing the transformation to the old reporting system knew the amount of manual work that went into the reporting each month. The general ledger system was not at an appropriate version for the "canned" extract, transform and load process. The out-of-the-box "streamlined implementation" was only partly usable because of these factors.
But the client was committed to improving their processes. And they had consultants with many years of experience in implementing CPM software and with the new tools being rolled out. Consequently, Phase 1 was a success and the client is well on their way to replacing old reporting software that is no longer supported.
So this is not to say beware of Out-of-the-Box solutions, after all most all businesses use Microsoft Office. This is to say that even Out-of-the-Box solutions work best if tailored to the individual need. Afterall, the first thing I do with a new version of Excel or Word is make sure I have all the special formatting menus that I like to use right at my finger tips.
Article has
1 comments.
Click To Read/Write Comments
One of the unexpected bonuses of implementing a Business Intelligence or BPM system throughout an organization is that it forms a consistent reporting process that continues to drive strategic objectives even when they are lost in "day to day" business issues.
There are always multiple strategic objectives within an organization and they will change over time. By developing proper reporting which is pushed out to users, it reinforces to the recipients what is, was and what will be the key drivers of the business.
Our clients continue to mention how "day to day" issues often pull them away from the "big picture" and our system continues to remind them of what is important to measure and focus on.
A good reporting solution will automate the key metrics within a department or corporation but it should also be pushing those key indicators out to users to reinforce their importance as they get lost in daily issues.
It happened today... A client told me that the system we implemented was a key component in communicating corporate objectives and keeping this CFO on track with measures he had been instrumental in developing with us but was himself guilty of losing track of when other less important issues consumed him.
Article has
23 comments.
Click To Read/Write Comments
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
1 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
1 comments.
Click To Read/Write Comments
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
1 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