3 out of 5.0, Reviewed Jun 30, 2016
The solution when deployed correctly meets the needs of our average sales user. Lack of visibility to hot fixes and communication from their support team could use improvement.
Ask SAP to create a real-life situation for their demo for you to understand what is assumed functionality versus actual delivered product.
The ability for the user to login anywhere without needing to VPN in.
The length of time for them to answer support items.
Communicated adjustments to the cloud environment and which work centers are impacted.
Create some finite benchmarks for performance.
Unless you involve all chains of command in priority tickets - it will get lost in a vicious cycle of ticket rejection.
5 out of 5.0, Reviewed May 2, 2016
We implemented C4C in-house, with a core team of two people (one IT, one business). With an SAP CRM background, it was easy to get up to speed with the configuration tasks. Implementation time can be measured in weeks with this solution, not months/years like its predecessors.
Our advice would be to integrate JAM. It has really driven the adoption and creates the impression of a much bigger, valuable solution than the C4C library/feed does.
The Outlook sync process for contacts is poor compared to the process for appointments/emails.
Request our production tenant much later in the process, and request it as a copy of the test tenant once all configuration is confirmed.Also, now we know master data cannot be deleted, we also wouldn't replicate any data in production until we know exactly what was going to happen.
We get the impression the support organization doesn't read all the details in the ticket. For example, we have an issue with the Android app. I provided documentation that showed we downloaded and tested the latest version. Support responded asking me to install the latest version. Days have been wasted now. Very frustrating. We also get the impression that solutions are not tested before being passed back to us.
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Apr 30, 2016
Our overall experience was very positive. We wish reporting was a little further along with c4c. It's not yet highly intuitive and a little clunky to manage. That said, we like the day to day user interaction and the mobile capability.
ensure executjve sponsorship across divisions and functions, and have a full time administrator.
mobility and ability to create custom filters.
had training a little more developed
bring out it earlier in scoping.
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Apr 26, 2016
Implementation took some time because the coding methods were not the same as ECC but it reduced call center training times through a simplified, consolidated user interface.
Remember there is a learning curve to the software. It is different than ECC in table structure and programming methodology.
Very robust Call Center management system with ordering, ticketing, email response, loyalty management, and marketing campaign management
The web channel was very weak.
The web channel commerce was rather weak. This is now replaced with Hybris Commerce.
Standardize the global roll out more for other countries.
Integrates well with other SAP systems.
3 out of 5.0, Reviewed Apr 26, 2016
Eventually pleased with the result but its not easy to integrate. SAP have aome way to go to providing a stable platform, they are struggling with the transition from software provider to SaaS.
Its much better now, but watch out for the upgrade cycle, you will have issues every 3 months.
use HCI rather than PI.
use HCI rather than PI, avoid connectivity using VPN, find a partner who have the right experience.
Very poor system availability and performance
Difficult to integrate to CRM on prem, avoid a 3 way integration with ECC.
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Apr 25, 2016
Product is great but SAP does not sell it well.
pick the implementation partner well.
integration, frequent updates.
on-premise training of remote sales force sooner.
HCI is a snap.