1 out of 5.0, Reviewed Nov 9, 2016
vendor was experienced, however the profile of the consultant offered to do the implementation was false
understand your own business and describe your own business using the same temrinolgy as the software vendor
making costly mistakes, resulting in a year full of irritation and costly rework
avoid misunderstandings witin the project team by understanding and using the terminology of the customer
spend more time on the analysing phase of the project. be more critical to avoid quick (wrong) choices
system is still not working for 100%
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Oct 17, 2016
Overall project was successful, especially due to the expertise of our 3rd party implementor of AX. Learned along the way that the product was not capable of some functions we originally thought.
Hire a competent 3rd party vendor to help with implementation.
The internal service improvements we've realized.
The client is not web based, and is not the most intuitive to use.
More in depth initial requirements. Not implement at same time as another external B2B financial system conversion.
Microsoft support has been fantastic.
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Oct 16, 2016
it was an ERP implementation so there was pain but we worked through it
Very clear scope, very early on.
all modules included in licensing
lack of transportation management
after sales support. once we locked they were gone
Stronger detailed understanding on the business side of processes and which ones really drove compteitive advantage
MS support has been weak
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Sep 23, 2016
The knowledge of the vendor is vast.
To make sure you have a knowledgeable partner with vast experience. It's never good to be a 'guinea pig'.
The ease of use, Microsoft support, cost, functionality.
The security module is a nightmare. Not well developed and very little support available.
I wish the vendor had more experience with implementations and upgrades. Also, I wish they had more experience with reporting solutions.
I think we would have allowed more time in the deadline. We also could have used more resources to review existing code and modifications to make sure there wasn't a trickle effect to other parts of the system.
Service and support was okay, but there are little training documents and support is pricey. Most of our support is in house.
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Jul 28, 2016
AX is very complex by itself and our implementation complexity was magnified by the fact that we were implementing AX 2012 R3 for 6 different brands (hence 6 different sets of requirements).
Select a strong and experienced implementation partner that has local consultants.
flexibility, breadth of ISV providing bolt-on solutions for AX.
Better and more detailed documentation.
Select a more experienced implementation partner.
5 out of 5.0, Reviewed Jun 9, 2016
Working with Microsoft to implement the system was simple and quick, most work required was getting business groups to realize that adoption of an external standardized process was more efficient than using their "best practice" process.
Listen to Microsoft, their experience in implementing the system was very helpful to the products success. Optimize processes before implementing them.
Rapid application development, with strong interface connectivity. An ERP that is inexpensive and quick to implement.
Client portion of the application, it significantly increases global deployment effort.
Eliminate the rich client portion of the application. Thin client usage has the most value, as portability of the system is its key to success.
Strictly enforce adherence to standards. Work with users to adopt the out of the box functionality, vs. compromising and change the product.
Able to get Microsoft resources in house and on the problem when faced with issues.
Few issues that were not readily overcome.