Microsoft Dynamics

What are you running your business with? Is it ERP?

Perhaps you’ve heard me ask the question, “Is it ERP?” about various solutions on the market. Maybe you were thinking, “Does it matter?” The answer to that question is, “Yes and no.” “No,” in that ERP, like any software category, is just that. It’s a category, a label and you shouldn’t read too much into that. “Yes,” in that the category is often misused and maligned.

While the acronym itself (short for enterprise resource planning) can be somewhat misleading, I have always been very clear on my definition of ERP:

ERP is an integrated suite of modules that form the operational and transactional system of record of the business.

The rest of the world doesn’t see it quite this clearly. Of course my definition is intentionally quite broad, but it needs to be simply because the operational and transactional needs will vary quite significantly depending on the very nature of the business. You can’t run a service business like a manufacturing or distribution business. Retailers, government and non-profits all have their own unique requirements.

This situation is also clearly exasperated by the fact that the footprint of ERP has grown to the point where it is getting more and more difficult to determine where ERP ends and other applications begin. Functions like performance management, talent and human capital management, etc, that used to sit squarely outside of ERP, today might sit either inside or outside that boundary. While operational accounting has long been a core competency of ERP, more robust financial management can be an integral part of ERP, or a stand-alone solution. Likewise, the footprint of solutions that have traditionally been marketed as financial and accounting solutions have expanded as well. No wonder there is so much confusion out there.

As a result, I thought it would be a good idea this year to see what people actually think they are using to run their businesses. While I have been conducting an annual ERP survey since 2006, much of the data I collect is relevant to other solution providers as well, particularly those that focus primarily on finance and accounting, with perhaps some project management and/or human resource management included. So this year I changed the name of the study to the Mint Jutras Enterprise Solution Study and added a new question at the very beginning.

Question: Which of the following best describes the software you use to manage your business?

  • Primarily enterprise level finance and accounting solutions (might include project management and/or human capital management)
  • Integrated enterprise level finance and accounting solutions supplemented with other operational applications (e.g. inventory, warehouse management, etc.)
  • An integrated suite of modules that provides a full system of record of our business (often referred to as ERP)
  • Desktop solutions such as Quicken, QuickBooks, Peachtree, etc.
  • Mostly spreadsheets and/or some low-cost or free tools (Google apps, Zoho, etc.)
  • Don’t Know

While data collection is still underway, we have collected almost 300 responses thus far and the results are quite interesting.

Note that participants checking spreadsheets and “Don’t Know” were disqualified and therefore will not be represented in any results. While those running desktop solutions qualified, only 1 participant checked this option and therefore I will only include the first three listed above in our discussion here.

During the course of the survey, participants are asked to check off all the different accounting/ERP solutions they have implemented across their entire enterprises and then asked to select one of those and answer implementation and performance questions for that specific solution. While 84% of the participants selected a solution that is clearly marketed as ERP, only 33% of this segment selected the third option above, which is reflective of the Mint Jutras definition of ERP. So they have purchased an ERP solution, but by my definition, they aren’t running ERP.

The remaining 16% selected solutions that are generally marketed as finance and accounting solutions. And yet 21% of these participants described the solution they were running as an integrated suite that provides a complete system of record of their business (i.e. ERP). So it would appear the majority of those running full ERP solutions are not making the most of what they have. And at least one in five of those running solutions primarily marketed as accounting solutions seem to have all they need to run their businesses. The full breakdown of responses is summarized in Figure 1.

Figure 1: What runs your business?

Figure 1 Blog postSource: 2015 Mint Jutras Enterprise Solution Study

These (somewhat surprising) results caused me to dive a little deeper, looking for, if not an explanation, at least a pattern. This early sample represented a pretty diverse group with the largest representation from manufacturing (41%) and service related businesses (36%). Given ERP evolved from MRP (material requirements planning), one would expect a higher adoption rate and more mature ERP implementations in manufacturers. While very few manufacturers run the solutions marketed primarily as finance and accounting solutions, 41% indicated the software running the business was primarily a finance and accounting solution. Another 26% had integrated finance and accounting solutions supplemented with other operational solutions such as inventory and warehouse management, presumably purchased from another vendor or a partner of their ERP solution provider. Again, only 33% described their implementation as full ERP. So no, manufacturers are not ahead of the pack.

I also looked at individual solution providers where I had a sample of at least 20 responses for smaller vendors or 40+ for larger ones. What segments were most likely to be running an integrated suite that provides a full system of record? The answer: Those running solutions that specifically target small to mid-size businesses. Does this mean small and mid-size businesses were more likely to describe what they were running as ERP? Not necessarily. It depends a lot on the solution provider and the solution itself.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of those running Aptean’s solutions and 67% of those running SAP Business One described what they were running as ERP, per the definition above. Those running Acumatica’s cloud-based solution were also more likely to do so at 55%. And yet those running any of the four Microsoft Dynamics ERP solutions (AX, NAV, GP, SL), all of which target small to midsize enterprises (SMEs), were less likely, with only 28% indicating they were running a full ERP. Instead, they were more likely to report running integrated enterprise level finance and accounting solutions supplemented with other operational applications. My guess is that the partners that sold them the Dynamics solution (note: all Dynamics solutions are sold exclusively through partners) provide these other operational applications. Yet clearly these add-on’s are not so fully embedded and seamlessly integrated that they appear to simply be part of the ERP solution.

This is in stark contrast to solutions sold by Intacct partners, where I have noted previously that it is nearly impossible to distinguish where Intacct ends and the partner solution begins. As a result, 23% of Intacct customers indicated they were running an integrated suite that provides a full system of record, even though Intacct doesn’t portray its solution as ERP. It is one of those financial and accounting solution providers.

Another factor at play here is the whole concept of 2-tier ERP implementations. A full 85% of our survey respondents operate in more than one location and 69% are multi-national enterprises. This lends itself to the scenario where each operating location (division, subsidiary, business unit, etc.) may be run as a business all on its own. In fact if these units are in different countries they are also separate legal entities, requiring their own P&Ls. So you might have one system running at corporate headquarters (HQ) and other systems running the divisions.

The requirements at corporate HQ are largely financial, particularly if all orders are placed and fulfilled at the divisional level. This contributes to a larger percentage of respondents only running financials.

In days gone by these operating units might have been left to their own devices to find a solution to help them run their individual operations. Those days are long gone though. Today, 96% of our survey participants with multiple locations have established corporate standards and 64% of the time these are multi-tier standards, meaning a different ERP is used at the divisional level than at corporate. But even with a corporate financial solution in place, divisions still need some sort of finance and accounting in order to roll up to corporate. You can push the corporate financials down to the divisional level and then supplement them with other operational solutions. Or you can implement a full ERP at the divisional level and then integrate the divisional ERP with corporate financials.

This alone could be a very good reason why SAP Business One customers are more likely to be running a fully integrated suite. Of course if they are truly a small stand-alone business, they need a complete solution and probably don’t have the budget to be looking for disparate solutions that need to be integrated. Even if they are part of a large corporate enterprise, there is a pretty good chance corporate is running some version of SAP ERP. Because SAP Business One is pre-integrated with SAP ERP, the division has an integrated suite of modules providing a full system of record of the division’s business, that also happens to roll up to corporate financials.

With this as a likely scenario, you might think that the vast majority of SAP ERP customers are simply running integrated financials. They are not. Only 19% reported running primarily enterprise level finance and accounting, while 29% reported running integrated financials and other operational applications and a (relatively) impressive 52% reported running full ERP. Many assume SAP, being the 800-pound gorilla and therefore open to attack, is so complex and hard to implement that many never get beyond the basics of accounting. Yet in comparison to others, it is actually more likely to provide that full system of record.

This is not the case with Oracle, the other giant in the ERP industry. Almost half (46%) of Oracle users participating in the survey characterize their implementations as primarily accounting and only 28% describe them as ERP.

So while I would like to conclude that I found a distinct and recognizable pattern in all this data, the bottom line is that implementations vary quite significantly, particularly in comparing different solution providers. I am excited to have the beginnings of this new and extensive data set and look forward to sharing other insights as we move through the data collection and analysis phases.

Solution providers interested in collecting data from your own installed bases, feel free to contact me directly at cindy@mintjutras.com. There is still time but the window of opportunity will be closing soon!

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What’s New in the Annual Mint Jutras ERP Survey

I am excited to be preparing to launch my annual 2014 ERP survey. This will be my 8th and I’ve learned a lot through the years about how to ask the questions and how to best analyze the results. Since founding Mint Jutras in 2011 I have gradually shifted the timing of the survey, so that now (and in the future) it will be launched early in January, and I will use and reference the data throughout the year. As most of you know, I collect a massive amount of data. I try to be consistent with many of the questions from one survey to the next in order to make legitimate year over year comparisons, watching prior trends and spotting new ones. But each year I remove some questions that didn’t produce much insight (that’s how I learn) or that really don’t change much in one year. I do that to make room for something new.

It will be interesting to continue to watch trends, particularly around:

  • Buying cycles: Last year the percentage planning to purchase a new ERP within the next three years more than doubled from 24% to 47%, with another 15% undecided.
  • Deployment preferences: In the 18 months between the 2011 and 2013 surveys, the percentage of companies that would consider a traditional on-premise deployment dropped from 56% to 27%. Preference for both SaaS and hosted models increased.
  • ERP is reaching more users: On average 50% of employees actually use ERP today, including more executives. All executives have access to and regularly use ERP in 47% of companies, a far cry from just a few short years ago. We suspect the growing use of mobile devices has been and will continue to be a game-changer here.
  • Results measured since deploying ERP rose considerably with improvement percentages rising from the 5-7% range to double digits. These are improvements like cost reductions and improvements in on-time delivery, customer retention and inventory accuracy. “World Class” ERP implementations produced results in the 20-24% range. Was this an aberration last year or is new technology fostering better results?

What’s New This Year?

But what I am even more excited about is our new approach to capturing information about how the full spectrum of business applications, with ERP at the core, are implemented. Back when I started benchmarking ERP in 2006, I set out to quantify its usage. My first five annual surveys were done while I was at the Aberdeen Group where I came up with a formula for determining the percentage of ERP that was actually used. When I founded Mint Jutras I used what I had learned in those five years and modified that formula in order to get what I felt was a much more accurate result. But after eight years of this type of measurement, not only has this become old news, it is also harder to get an accurate read.

As I have been saying for several years now, the footprint of ERP has grown to the extent that it is becoming more and more difficult to determine where ERP ends and other applications begin. That is not only the case when covering, writing and talking about ERP, particularly as integration capabilities have improved, but for users as well. In prior blog posts this year I have discussed the relative advantages and disadvantages of “tightly integrated” versus “loosely coupled” applications. But this distinction is not intuitively obvious to the typical ERP user that takes our survey, particularly since typically less than 40% of respondents are in IT. Most are business users and may not have intimate knowledge of the purchase or the architecture of the product itself. They simply use ERP to run their businesses. And of course, that is primarily what we benchmark.

Modules versus Extensions: No longer the right question

In prior surveys I distinguished between ERP “modules” and “extensions” to ERP – those separate applications that might surround and complement it. I asked which modules were implemented (fully or partially) and then asked (separately) which additional applications were implemented. But as the footprint of ERP has grown, the overlap between these two lists also grew. While having both for any particular function might happen occasionally (e.g. a manufacturer might use supply chain planning functions of their ERP and also complement that with a separate “best of breed” solution), it would be the exception and not the norm. And yet, the number of instances where survey responses indicated they had both a module and an extension for the same function began to grow, casting a shadow of doubt on the validity of the responses. That told me it was getting too hard for the survey participants to answer the questions.

So this year I am changing it up with a different purpose in mind. This year, we will

  • Determine current state of implementations with a single list of functions, including traditional core functions of ERP (e.g. general ledger, accounts payable, accounts receivable, inventory control, order management, purchasing, etc.) and more advanced or “edge” functions (e.g. warehouse management, cash flow planning, BI and analytics, employee expense reporting, supplier collaboration, etc.) that might be a module or a separate application. The survey respondent will indicate whether it is (perceived as) part of ERP or not and, if separate, the level of integration.
  • Ask “what if?” Maybe this current state came about because of limited functionality and technology at the time of purchase. If the respondent were making the same decisions today, how would they go about it?
  • Ask “What next?” Given the state of their current implementation, what are most likely next steps? Add new components? Trade it all in for newer technology? Replace certain embedded functions? Eliminate separate applications now that ERP does more?
  • Have them choose up to five areas they are most likely to invest in next.

While this will tell us a lot, we’ll also drill a little deeper into plans for two areas, which happen to be among the hottest categories on the market today:

  • Human Capital Management (is it a fluke the big ERP vendors are buying these applications?)
  • Business Intelligence and Analytics (Is it time to take these tools out of the hands of IT and put them in the hands of the business user?)

We have also added a couple “Mobility” questions, along with one that will determine just how “usable” ERP data is.

If you are an ERP user, look for a link to the survey in the beginning of the year. We welcome your response.

If you are an ERP solution provider and think

  • The data we collect will be useful to you in making product roadmap or go-to-market decisions
  • Mint Jutras might be able to develop some good educational content for you with our distinctive “call to action”
  • You might like to benchmark your customers against our World Class

Please shoot me a message or contact Lisa Lincoln (lisa@mintjutras.com)

Lisa and I both wish everyone health and prosperity in the coming year!

Best Independent ERP Blog

Best Independent ERP Blog

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Mint Jutras Launches Annual ERP Survey

Participate to Receive Research Results on ERP Status and Performance

We have recently launched a comprehensive survey to support our annual Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Solution Study. As of this morning we have collected 337 responses, but we intend to get that number up to about 1000 over the next few weeks. The study investigates goals and challenges, preferences and trends of ERP. If you are using ERP today or contemplating a purchase, please participate in our survey to help us benchmark performance of the average implementation today, as well as World Class implementations. We will share the results to help you determine if you are getting the most value out of your investment.

Many believe the ERP market to be saturated today, but Mint Jutras puts adoption rate somewhere between 60% and 80%, depending on the industry and size of company. Based on preliminary survey results we expect buying activity to increase for both new and replacement purchases. And we’re also seeing some interesting trends in ERP selection priority. While fit and function have topped the list for years, early respondents ranked it #4 after ease of use, the flexibility to adapt to changing business needs and integration technology and capabilities.

Here at Mint Jutras we feel there is too much focus today on ERP failures. Yes ERP is a significant undertaking and not without risk, but those who do it right realize even more significant benefits, measured as cost savings and performance improvements. ERP has become a necessary infrastructure for doing business today. In order to achieve a competitive advantage you need to be taking full advantage of a broad range of features and functions, supported by enabling technology. Don’t put your head in the sand and ignore the possibilities available through web-enablement, cloud deployments and mobile devices. Don’t allow yourself to be buried by ‘big data’.

All knowledgeable participants are welcome to take the survey.

ERP solution providers interested in survey results contact Lisa Lincoln (lisa@mintjutras.com).

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

ERP: Join me in a stroll down memory lane

I’ve been “watching” ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) for more than three decades now. You might even say I’ve been watching it before it even existed, before it emerged on the market, when it was still a twinkle in the eye of software companies. You see, back in the 1970’s most of the software industry looked with disdain on “packaged” software. Everything was pretty much home-grown or custom developed back then. After all, how in the world could you possibly write software that would really meet the needs of a wide range of companies? Back then of course, all companies were “different” and therefore software had to be developed to meet those unique needs. Right?

The answer even back then was really, “No, of course not.” Each and every company was not really that different. Every for-profit company took orders, delivered goods or services and paid their bills. Manufacturers bought components or ingredients and made things.  Distributors moved goods. Retailers procured, stocked and sold product. Even non-profits needed to balance their books and produce financial statements.  All but the very smallest companies had payroll to meet and taxes to pay. Yet business processes were/are not identical from company to company and each had/has their own nuances. Back in the 1970’s god forbid, if a software company dared to question how things were done, or worse, attempt to change policy or procedure. If something had to change, it was definitely the software. And back then, that meant mucking around deep down in the source code. And it was even worse if the file or database structures had to change.

When you look at it from this perspective you realize just how far we have come. Back 30 years ago, data entry clerks (dare I say even key punch operators?) and data processing (the predecessors to IT) departments were the only people who actually “touched” software. The only thing management touched was the mountain of paper produced as output and that paper was green bar, continuous forms that might or might not be “burst” into individual pages. Thirty years might seem like a life-time to those in Generation X, Y or the new iY. But to Baby Boomers who entered the job market during the 1960’s and 1970’s it seems like just yesterday.

ERP has of course evolved from MRP which originally stood for Material Requirements Planning, then expanded to include more than materials and became Manufacturing Resource Planning. Somewhere along the way there was an MRP II, but at this point in history the difference “II” added doesn’t much matter anymore. Then as the footprint of the software grew to encompass other aspects of the business, MRP merged with accounting applications and morphed into ERP. It broke free of the boundaries implied by Material and Manufacturing, to be an enterprise application for all types of industries. Some struggle to define ERP today. I don’t. I define it as an integrated suite of modules that forms the transactional and operational system of record of the business. But the boundaries of ERP have steadily grown to include a broader and deeper footprint, to the point where ERP is not really confined by any boundaries.

Back in the 1970’s, nobody would have conceived how far we could go in the next 30+ years, just as we couldn’t conceive of having the same (or more) processing power clipped to our waistbands  as that which used to require raised floor, climate-controlled rooms.  So where are we going now? All the rage of course is:

  • Mobility: accessing enterprise data from those ubiquitous mobile devices
  • Cloud computing: operating ERP in a hosted environment, public or private clouds, buying Software as a Service (SaaS) and connecting traditional on-premise solutions to those in the cloud
  • Two-tier ERP strategies: does it make sense for a multi-divisional company  to standardize on one ERP, or to have one (or more) operational ERP’s coexisting with a corporate, administrative ERP?
  • Mashing up data from ERP with other applications and even external applications like Google Maps, Outlook and anything you can reach through a url.
  • Processing huge volumes of data in seconds or even nanoseconds

But the real bottom line in implementing ERP is just that… the bottom line. How does it impact cost and efficiency? What business benefits does it bring? And is anyone measuring? This is the subject of my recently launched survey.

If you have ERP, you have a chance to weigh in on how important these trends are to you and then see a summary of the results and engage in the discussion. Even if you haven’t invested in ERP yet, jump in. We want to hear about what you are doing now, what’s holding you back and what are your plans?

You might be asking yourself, “What’s in it for me?” I will share a copy of the Executive Summary of the findings with all participants and I am also offering access to Mint Jutras for questions and inquiry regarding ERP for 6 months after you take the survey. While contact info is optional, I will need your name and email address to deliver this to you. Don’t worry, this exercise is not a marketing ploy asking for your permission to share your contact info. It’s really just about the research, so don’t be afraid to have your voice heard.

Please click on our Survey link to participate.

A note to solution providers: Feel free to take the survey but ONLY IF you answer questions honestly as a user (not a provider) of ERP solutions. Or, if you prefer, pass this along to your customers. For more information on how you might participate (see and benefit from the results) please contact me at cindy@mintjutras.com.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Case for ERP Consolidation

Today I was reading Bruce Richardson’s View From the Inside. Bruce was one of the longest tenured analysts with AMR Research (and its Chief Research Officer) before AMR was acquired by Gartner at the end of 2009/beginning of 2010. Bruce and I really moved in opposite directions. While I spent 30 years working for software companies before joining the analyst ranks, at the time of the AMR acquisition by Gartner, Bruce moved to Infor and is now on the software side. So we’ve both seen the view from both sides now.
The subject of Bruce’s “View” today was “A Tour of the Distribution ERP Market with Infor’s Andy Berry.” It talked about roadmaps and growth of sales to this market. But what specifically caught my eye was the announcement that Infor would be consolidating its multiple distribution products down to two and eventually to one offering. This is definitely a new approach for Infor. Throughout its history of over 35 acquisitions, Infor has avoided the consolidation or rationalization of products, sometimes in sharp contrast to companies it acquired.
The one merger in particular that comes to mind is Infor’s acquisition of SSA Global (August 2006), which itself had been a product of serial acquisitions and had defined a path of rationalization. Having just left SSA myself about 6 months prior to the acquisition, I was intimately familiar with its consolidation strategy. With somewhere around 10 different product lines at the time, SSA’s plan had been to consolidate down to two ERP solutions (LX and LN) and one financial management product, which ultimately would provide the basis of the financial modules in the two ERP solutions. But the company wasn’t too far down the path of execution when the merger happened, and the consolidation message, quite frankly, had not been very well received by its customer base. So abandoning that strategy seemed like a no-brainer at the time.
Add to this a couple other similar situations in the ERP market. Oracle had acquired Peoplesoft and JD Edwards, and also had its own business suite. But its announcement of its Fusion product as a single consolidated product line also met with resistance from its installed base. This was also about the time of Microsoft’s Project Green, which was meant to rationalize the four acquired ERP products (AX, NAV, GP, SL) down to one. Same reaction. Boos from the crowd.
So the case seemed to be pretty solid against rationalization unless you wanted to seriously tick off your customers. And maintenance revenue streams are way too important to an ERP solution provider to risk. So why was one ERP that also grew by acquisition – Epicor – successful in doing exactly the opposite?
On October 21, 2008, Epicor Software Corporation announced Epicor 9, the culmination of an eight year effort to converge its nine different product lines. And along the way, it didn’t seem to alienate its customer base. In fact over the years I have spoken with numerous Epicor customers that perceived a reimplementation as an opportunity, rather than a hardship. What was the difference?
Of course there are a myriad of differences, but I think the one that really mattered was that Epicor made the new destination different enough to really matter. Many installed base customers faced with a reimplementation perceive it as a “rip and replace” only to spend lots of time and effort to get back to exactly where they started.  Epicor took a staged approach to delivering on its goal of convergence and did not lose sight of its promise to protect investments along the way. But it also knew that it had to bite the bullet and do a complete re-write of its underlying base architecture. So first it built its Internet Component Environment (ICE) 2.0, a second-generation Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) and Web 2.0 technologies. Then over the course of several years it converged from nine to four and then to one. Customers weren’t re-implementing on the promise of something new and different in the future. It was already there and they knew if they just tried to re-create their existing environment they would be cementing in place any restrictions they currently faced.
Oracle Fusion and Microsoft Green promised new architectures but they weren’t “there” yet. SSA had no new architecture to promise.
Infor always had the vision, but for several years got side-tracked through attempts to architect its own middleware. Infor has now decided to stick to what it does best – enterprise applications. By 2013 the two “destination” distribution products will share the same functional code base. Infor is already working on building identical user interfaces based on its new Infor Workspace and it is also working on integration with Infor ION, which it describes as “a new generation of business middleware that is lighter weight, less technically demanding to implement, and built on open standards.” I believe Infor ION will be a key factor if Infor is now successful in implementing a rationalization strategy here on the distribution side … and perhaps among its different ERP solutions for manufacturing? For its multiple financial management solutions? There are lots of opportunities for consolidation here and lots of work to be done. But then remember the 400 new developers Infor intends to hire?
And also don’t forget the two major acquisition announcements that emerged recently – that Infor intends to acquire Lawson and that APAX Partners intends to merge Epicor with Activant (ERP  for distribution). Fortunately Lawson Mashup Designer and Infor Workspace have a lot in common, at least conceptually. This could help. And time will tell if Epicor 9 becomes Epicor 10.
Tagged , , , , ,

Microsoft Dynamics CRM 2011 Arrives On-Premise Early

Yesterday Microsoft announced the availability of the on-premise version of Microsoft Dynamics CRM 2011. A month ago, on January 17th the cloud-based online version made its debut. It was the first time Microsoft ever announced an on-demand version before making the on-premise version available. Now, as they release the on-premise version we spot another rarity in the software world… bringing a product to market early. Back in January Microsoft had said they would release the on-premise version on February 28th, but  lo and behold, it is already here.
In a way it is not surprising. The online and on-premise versions are really the same. While in the initial launch event Kirill Tatarinov (head of the Dynamics business) noted the symmetry between the two versions and touted this as something nobody had ever done before, I would respectfully disagree. In the past year we have seen several major enterprise applications vendors do the same, pointing to the value of giving customers choice and allowing them to move, uninhibited between the cloud and on-premise and back again. I suppose if you narrow the conditions down enough it might be unique, but instead I would point to it as a growing trend, particularly among those traditionally on-premise only software solution providers.
I am actually just now catching up on all this news. When I was recently with Aberdeen I was not the primary analyst covering CRM. But with a broad coverage area of Enterprise Applications, the center point being ERP, it was pretty hard to avoid. As ERP vendors continued to expand their solution footprints, the front office was one of the first targets. Very often I would see CRM modules being added to the core of ERP. Originally they were CRM Lite, but no more. These fully integrated or even embedded versions were becoming more feature-rich and fully functional. So it is not unusual for me to see CRM sold as a feature of ERP.
This made perfect sense to me because for almost 2 decades CRM vendors have been using the phrase, “a 360o view of the customer.” But I failed to see how they could pull that off without ERP, or minimally an accounting system. After all, it is not a CRM system that invoices the customer or manages the receivables and seldom does it manage inventory where field service is an integral part of servicing the customer.
But not only is Microsoft Dynamics selling the compatibility and integration with ERP, you could almost say they are selling it as a feature of Outlook. I see this as a rather ingenious way of getting CRM infiltrated into the organization. It is human nature to resist change (and new software indeed represents  change) and the sales organization is no exception. In addition, how often have you seen a sales rep resist using the sales force automation “leg” of CRM for fear of big brother looking over his or her shoulder? End users of enterprise applications are less likely to ask for an additional software applications (to implement and learn) than they are to ask for more functionality in the solutions they already have.   And what application does a sales rep, particularly an inside rep, practically live in? Microsoft Outlook.
Of course, adding this functionality to Outlook does represent some change. But I have just recently migrated from Office 2003/Outlook 2007 to the 2010 versions of both. Talk about change! Of course it presented a bit of difficulty in finding the features I was accustomed to, but even after several weeks, it is a constant series of discovery of new features and functions. Based on the demo I saw of Microsoft Dynamics CRM 2011, the experience appears to be similar. Where I now click on Mail, Calendar, Contacts or Tasks, I would have an additional choice to go directly to CRM. But for the most part I don’t often have to leave the comfort of Outlook. I get new buttons on my tool bars with what Microsoft calls an Office-like ribbon. I get new personalization features. For example I can have any opportunity over a certain dollar value or forecast percentage highlighted with red, bolded font. With one click I can turn those opportunities into a chart, or I can have predefined charts. Or I could just stick to the raw data if I weren’t such a “visual” person.
Those are changes I could easily get used to!
Tagged , ,