2 out of 5.0, Reviewed Nov 2, 2016
On-site support staff from vendor were conscientious and hard-working. Invaluable in resolving implementation issues and building in-house expertise. However, adoption complexity was much greater than represented, including significantly greater than expected customization and attendant costs. Quality of training and documentation was poor. Fit and finish of product below standard for a product of this sophistication and maturity.
Do a thorough test drive/walk-through of all business processes you expect to rely on the product. Spec everything and ensure those specs are included in the contract.
Some areas allow greater flexibility in modeling our business than our old system (GMS) provided. Support options available.
Skeletal documentation--skimp especially on the more technical information (e.g. definition of parameters to built-in functions, meaning of error messages, syntax of database table joins) but also shockingly useless on simple how-to explanations of most features. The training was little better; the key advice from one trainer was that the best way to learn the product was by trial and error. That is proving to be very expensive and frustrating. Error messages are inscrutable and useful (perhaps) only to OLF support. Fit and finish of the product is attrociously bad; the UI/UX varies from module to module, screen to screen as if the product was designed by different engineering teams that never communicated and had no overarching program management to craft a coherent, consistent approach. Most standard Windows keyboard sequences do not work (e.g. Esc to cancel a dialog, Ctrl+Z to undo, and many many more)
Allocate on-site resources consistently--same people staying on-site and on-task for continued duration, not flying in and out every 3-4 days.
Fixed price rather than time & materials contract--cost overruns resulted in increasingly harsh feature/functionality compromises to satisfy extrinisic time and budget constraints. Trianing and acceptance testing were also cut too short. Assign way more internal program management resources and spend much more time drilling down in detail of business processes not just technical implementations. Demand throrough product demonstration up front and not rely on imputed readiness of solution due to its supposedly broad adoption and many years in service. Out of the box the product is unusable. Actually, not really a product, but more a grab bag of technology components that can be custom fitted together on a bare platform. Demand thorough review of available training and documentation before signing contract. Insist vendor provide training and documentation sufficient to allow internal staff to not be endlessly beholden to expensive consulting and service options.
3 out of 5.0, Reviewed May 11, 2016
Lengthy lead time to implement, limited performance on the cloud platform.
push vendor to create a "built for cloud" performing version - existing solution still architecturally depends on thick client based solution.
Push business to limit customization.