PeopleSoft

[maverickstruth]

A friend of mine is an instructor at the U of C, and also acts as academic advisor for the department. PeopleSoft has basically become a suitable replacement for pretty much any curse word in our conversations because of the stories I've heard. The transition there was just a nightmare (not sure what they were using before), especially considering that the software often simply couldn't do what they needed it to do. Not to mention that sometimes the people offering the training had just received the training themselves earlier that same day

[metal_geek]

It's a managment function as much as software function.

Managment wants the computer to do X,Y,Z... but doesn't wanna change the actual work processes to match.

I worked for an ISO company, that had strictly followed policys, and we modeled the custom CRM stuff after that. Was the smoothest implementation ever, being that the computer was replacing stuff they were already doing on paper. There were still the inital "its faster on paper" type response, but it didn't take long before everyone to saw the benifit.

Only problem with custom stuff is no matter how well it's laid out the developer always has that little bit of knowledge that you can't really replace so when they leave you're kinda hooped. Truth be told though, often SAP, JDE, PeopleSoft are customized by consultants the same way and you end up in the same boat.

I heard a rumor that Home Depot is chainging thier POS system this fall to SAP, or something like that.... I can't even imagin implementing a system like that..
________
LovelyWendie

[Locke]

Originally Posted by maverickstruth

A friend of mine is an instructor at the U of C, and also acts as academic advisor for the department. PeopleSoft has basically become a suitable replacement for pretty much any curse word in our conversations because of the stories I've heard. The transition there was just a nightmare (not sure what they were using before), especially considering that the software often simply couldn't do what they needed it to do. Not to mention that sometimes the people offering the training had just received the training themselves earlier that same day

Yeah, as a student at the UofC when they instituted peoplesoft it was a cluster**** of catastrophic proportions because there was a huge leadup to the switchover and then all of a sudden, if you wanted to register for your classes you had to use this new system that didnt work.

For instance, I want to register for Class A, the software says I cant. Why not? I have all the prereqs, everything, whats the deal? No deal, peoplesoft just says no, pick a different class. WDF?

Pandemonium ensued and PeopleSoft is widely regarded as among the top 10 dumbest things the university has ever done.

[looooob]

yep not a fan

[arsenal]

Yah, I am working on an SAP implementation right now, as an ABAP developer.
I joined the project over a year ago, when it was a custom build.

SAP came in with an offer our exec could not refuse, so 3 months after I joined the project, it turned into an SAP implementation.

So far, it's been nothing but political bs between the company i work for and SAP. Our go live date has been pushed back 3 times now, and I could see it happening again.
Part of the problem is that we are using a brand new CRM system that was released as a beta in december.

It hasn't been much fun. Although, I got a trip to germany and toronto out of it so far. Those have pretty much been the highlights though.

[Flames89]

If it is anyone's fault it is the implementors/management at UofC.

PeopleSoft is able to run whole enterprises, no problem. The issues come in when a) the implentation team is horrible or b) clients want implementation custom built around their specific business processes.

JDEdwards = PeopleSoft also Oracle bought PeopleSoft - so support falls to them.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by Locke

Yeah, as a student at the UofC when they instituted peoplesoft it was a cluster**** of catastrophic proportions because there was a huge leadup to the switchover and then all of a sudden, if you wanted to register for your classes you had to use this new system that didnt work.

For instance, I want to register for Class A, the software says I cant. Why not? I have all the prereqs, everything, whats the deal? No deal, peoplesoft just says no, pick a different class. WDF?

Pandemonium ensued and PeopleSoft is widely regarded as among the top 10 dumbest things the university has ever done.

And don't forget the University spend (I think) upwards of 30+ million dollars bringing it in. Many professors I know won't even use it to try and recoup money spent. For instance, if a professor needs to buy a pizza for a meeting, he/she will avoid the process of sending in an invoice to get reimbursed (as it can take several months to get it back). Instead they will do some creative accounting to get the money back faster.

System is nothing less than completely fubar.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Flames89

If it is anyone's fault it is the implementors/management at UofC.

PeopleSoft is able to run whole enterprises, no problem. The issues come in when a) the implentation team is horrible or b) clients want implementation custom built around their specific business processes.

JDEdwards = PeopleSoft also Oracle bought PeopleSoft - so support falls to them.

Well, yeah, for choosing to implement a massively useless piece of software in the first place.

But in terms of screwing up the installation of the ERP... That falls squarely on the project leads involved (likely contractors). These systems are too damn complex to expect any sort of smooth transition. Hell, users won't even really buy into it for another 4-5 years at which point the whole damn thing will be under review for replacement anyways.

[Winsor_Pilates]

I was a UofC student when they adopted Peoplesoft. Hated it!
Can't imagine it's any better in the corporate world. How does such a crappy product become so big? The guys at the top must be raking it in, and they haven't even made a good program.

[CaptainCrunch]

A mini war developed in the comments section with a peoplesoft implementor blowing a gasket, and blaming the board of education.

Ifs actually pretty funny stuff.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I was a UofC student when they adopted Peoplesoft. Hated it!
Can't imagine it's any better in the corporate world. How does such a crappy product become so big? The guys at the top must be raking it in, and they haven't even made a good program.

The business world is a strange place. Where companies can sell their products for millions of dollars, and then get the customer to pay millions more to the company in order to implement to the customers needs.
But once that company gets its software into the customer location, that customer is essentially stuck with it. Because it would cost far to much to get a different product.

Kind of how microsoft came to be the largest software company in the world (at least at one point it was).

[Buff]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Yeah, we're on our 2nd provider and it is a big a PITA as ever. The original requirements spec is under constant assault:

Provider: "To do this, you must change to SQL Server"
Us: "But the preliminary requirement was that it run on Oracle"
Provider: "It will run on Oracle"
Us: "But we are having issues with X, Y and Z"
Provider: "You should change to SQL Server, we know it better"
Us: "But we chose you because you had expertise running this on Oracle"
Provider: "Yeah, but they are no longer with the company."
Us: "AAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH"

Rinse and repeat with all ongoing issues.

That happens with many systems, not just financial systems either. Also with which OS you need on your server.

[arsenal]

Waste Management is currently suing SAP for fraudulent claims, that deceived the executive into making the decision of implementing SAP.
Here is one article about it:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/...ntation_1.html

I imagine you could replace WM with any company that has implemented SAP or PeopleSoft, and it would read roughly the same way.

[CaptainCrunch]

Here's the problem, people can be stupid. I was talking with a colleague today, and we both came to the same conclusion. Everyone talks about due dilligence, but nobody does it, especially when more well known products are involved like the ones we're talking about here.

They don't do research, they call who they've heard of, and then stop there, so its no surprise that the ones with the marketing and the previous reputations usually win, then stick it too their clients later. Its like people who expect outsourcing solutions to perform miracles in their complicated business environment and then learn later that all outsourcing means is they get a stripped down generic solution and they pay a fortune for other services.

If your buying something thats going to protect your business, then do your homework, don't buy the toothpick tower, just because you've heard of the name.

I look at what we have to offer, and what it can do, and what our processes are, and to me its a pretty awesome solution, but going against an SAP or peopleSoft means that you start in a perception hole.

Yes PeopleSoft has failed these organizations, but these organizations also failed themselves.

[Devils'Advocate]

I'm with an agency in the federal government. The government has decided to consolidate with Peoplesoft on the HR side and SAP on the financial side. Which makes perfect sense since they talk so well with each other.

I've talked with people at other departments and not one - NOT A SINGLE ONE - was happy with either.

But I have a funny story to tell about SAP. In 1997 I worked for 6 months at Sobeys, the big Maritime food chain. At the time the head honchos didn't think much of this Y2K mumbling.. they figured "the techie guys will figure it out; they always do". After I left I stayed in touch with some people there. 1997 came and went. As did 1998. Halfway through 1999 and everyone realized that the systems couldn't be salvaged so they decided to migrate to SAP. You can imagine the stress of trying to get a huge system like SAP up and running in just 6 months. In January of 2000 a friend of a friend worked back-shift for a few days and should have received a paycheque of $400. Instead it spit out a cheque for $3,900. Now, once payroll realized that SAP was grossly overpaying people they went out and demanded the money back... and those that didn't pay it back would have their salaries garnished until the money was recouped, but this friend of a friend quit and said "the money is gone... get a lawyer if you want it back". They didn't bother.

[McG]

Its easy to point the fingers at the software, or hardware, or support team, or vendor, or team that made the decision. but it doesn't capture the immensity of these things...

when you understand how the rfp process works...it is inevitable that mistakes lead to errors, which lead to... it goes on and on.

the other problem is with requirements gathering. as much as you think that the rfp response helps you out...the problem is that many of these ERP systems are so massive that no one could possibly get all of the requirements down.

so what tends to happen is that some consultant is brought in to help right the rfp...and they speak to a few people in the company. they do the rfp and choose a winner.

detailed and specific business and technical specs have to be created. why? because you need to amend any ERP to match your company. who says that a software engineer in germany or india knows how best to run your company? and then you modify to the specs and then you test back to the specs when you are completed. you make a go/no go decision.

and then phase 2 should start to fix all of the things that you did the first time incorrectly or that are enhancements that you need.

what often happens is that during the JAD (Joint Application Development) sessions, people from the same company cannot agree on what they do and what they need the system to do. the person brought in to customize will often say..."let's just go with what we have for phase 1, and you guys get it sorted out and we will customize for phase 2". everyone agrees because that seems reasonable right? you don't want your tiny part of the company holding up the 9 digit implementation...

so these ERPs get imposed on companies. the tools have nothing to do with how the company was previously run, they are often overly complex, parameterization rich environments that require constant testing and tweaking. oh yah and the training sucks.

but the CFO looks at the bill and says...you know what? i already spent 100 million and the system works...but we can live with it. and there is never a phase 2. never. and you end up with a system that brings companies to their knees...and they have to find ways to work around the system just to get it to work!

did i mention testing? as in regression testing? conversions? anyone? brutal. very complex stuff and oftentimes testing is rushed to try to get things done. so you get buggy software.

its very complex stuff and requires long term commitment to get things to work the way you want...and i mean lots of money commitment.

the reality is that the more you put into these things...the more you get out of them...but many companies cannot wait nor invest that long.

and the kicker? the staff that were trained on the new ERP and are good are often headhunted for far bigger loot than they got in their old jobs...to go to the next ERP project! so not only does the company get a tool that doesn't work...they tend to lose their best employees from the project. accordingly, you outsource.

its crazy stuff.

but the craziest thing that i have ever seen is when a new ERP was deployed at a company from the old system that worked really well. the accounting team switched to excel to do all of their work and only used the multimillion dollar new ERP for data entry after everything had been calculated manually on spreadsheets. you couldn't make it up...but that is how bad it was.

[NSFL]

Originally Posted by maverickstruth

A friend of mine is an instructor at the U of C, and also acts as academic advisor for the department. PeopleSoft has basically become a suitable replacement for pretty much any curse word in our conversations because of the stories I've heard. The transition there was just a nightmare (not sure what they were using before), especially considering that the software often simply couldn't do what they needed it to do. Not to mention that sometimes the people offering the training had just received the training themselves earlier that same day

FUDGE PeopleSoft. There have been so many issues with PeopleSoft at the U of C. Ridiculous. Like you said, some of my profs pretty much use PeopleSoft as a swear. It does some of the stupidest things, like mess up which dates class start, not allow you to enroll in a class where you should be able to, screw up fee payments, and screw up exam schedules. Not to mention, things that should have only taken minutes to do on the old system (RIP infonet) takes more than half an hour. Fudge you peoplesoft.

[Shazam]

Yeah, but you take solace at the fact that the junior consultants on the project started at $45/hour.

[ricosuave]

the City of Calgary uses PeopleSoft as well

[Antithesis]

Peoplesoft!$^^$%&$$^$^#

Argh!!!!!

Yes ... I work for the CBE.