ERP systems for the 21st century, a buy-out market
Gijs Houtzagers
Principal consultant Kirkman Company
Amsterdamsestraatweg 40
3743 DT Baarn
The Netherlands
+31 88 40 40 400
Keywords:
Risks for the business
Integration technologies
Integration strategies
Consolidation
In the 20th century the 5 leading ERP vendors fought heavily to gain market share, each with very different strategies towards their own software and towards the market. The first decade of the 21st century will show a major change in the ERP market. This change is being facilitated by the struggle for market dominance of the two remaining vendors SAP and Oracle.
Look at the interesting figures that are part of this process:
1. Oracle is the largest supplier of ICT components. Lots of them rebuilt in the newest technology, the so-called service oriented architecture, that allows you to to provide processes in the web portal to be used with other applications
2. Sap is the largest supplier of business applications, but is being challenged mow Oracle has taken over the former number two, PeopleSoft en intends to integrate both ERP systems in a couple of years under the name Fusion
3. Sap has chosen not to reengineer the basic applications but to use a tool, Netweaver, to access the applications. Again to capture processes and publish them in the web portal
4. Oracle is hitting ground in permeating also the small and mid market. It is doing so using its own applications. Sap has developed special applications for these markets
5. In their struggle for marketshare both will also attack ERP systems in other branches or in the small markets. Recently Oracle snatched Retek, ERP for the retail market, for the nose of SAP
6. Some players will try to consolidate with each other to rebuff these attacks, but they lack the enormous funds of SAP and Oracle
7. And most important: how will the customers react, because of the new strategy of SAP to refund the investments in PeopleSoft and JDedwards, the decision to follow the Oracle strategy or to over to SAP is no longer a question of funds or investments but of choice for technology, vendor’s strategy and functionality
This article will analyze in depth how this struggle will unfold and what are the dangers for the business that use these ERP systems
Foreword
This article describes the world of ERP. It starts with a short description of the history of ERP, it continues with a look ahead how ERP will cope with the problem of flexibility as a result of the ever faster evolvement of the business environment and the struggle for leadership in he market. The article ends discussing the risks involved for the customer that has committed its business processes to ERP and is surprised with the take-over by another vendor and how a Dutch company, called Holland Casino is coping with this issue.
Introduction
A short history
In the 1980s the use of computers in business generally fell into two very different, and often co-existing camps. On one hand were the big mainframe monoliths – large powerful computers that performed calculations such as MRP1 and managed the financial records. This software was generally home-built, run by specialists with a lot of technical knowledge, and difficult to change. On the other hand were the PCs - computers so small and powerful that they could fit comfortably on desktops. This level of computing was more democratic - every manager in every department could write up or buy applications that would help them manage their piece of the business. Mainframes were not good at providing relevant, timely information in an easy-to-use format. PCs could not store huge databases of corporate information or simultaneously serve multiple users. And because there was no easy way to connect the two on a timely basis, it lead to a massive information management problem - how to co-ordinate all the data in all the databases around a company.
What were needed were systems that could tie together all the information stores in a company, while making the best use of desktop technology.
The result was ERP - a marriage of MRP II (Manufacturing Resource Planning) systems and client/server technologies. MRP II was a model for bringing together all the major processes of a business under a standard computerised planning system2. Client/server refers to the technical means by which a small, user-friendly computer (the client) could communicate with, and extract information from, a large data-processing system (the server).
A number of software companies, such as SAP, Baan, and JD Edwards, were in the right place at the right time. By repackaging their business software as ERP, they were able to capitalise on a business world that was hungry for new IT-driven solutions. ERP became a huge money-spinner almost overnight, spurred on by legions of IT consultants who marketed it as the perfect solution for every company's woes. The feverish demand to adopt ERP was exacerbated by the latest management fad - Business Process Re-engineering, and also the prospect of major problems with existing systems during the change-over from the year 1999 to 2000 - the so-called Y2K bug. Today the total ERP business is measured in tens of billions of dollars annually, and the principal ERP vendors, such as SAP and Oracle, earn revenues comparable with those of Microsoft.
But with the global acceptance of ERP new problems for the organizations using it became visible:
1. Multiple methods of doing something are straightened into one way of doing it to just one way - resulting in a lot of people with their noses put out-of-joint when they are forced to give up their tried and tested procedures for a standardised one.
2. The sharing of data globally threatens the many fiefdoms that exist in any large company, particularly the ones that jealously guard their information from other parts of the organisation. Because of integration it is no longer clear who owns the data, thereby frustrating integrated management information on boardroom level
3. Implementing ERP takes a lot of time - between one and three years - and a lot can happen in any business during that time. Management could change, new markets could open up, increased competition might force the company to change course. Most ERP systems work with parameters you have to set up before doing the real implementation. Rethinking these parameters during the implementation process results often in a reimplementation
4. ERP is very complex. As the company gets into the project, often lacks in scoping occur and new understandings will continually come to light, which might in some cases require significant changes to the project timescales.
5. ERP is hugely expensive - it is not unusual for ERP budgets to overrun wildly, as companies fail to account for all the non-software costs, particularly the costs of training, back-filling key staff, overtime and the aforementioned creep in scope and timescales. A key issue here that is often
The Future of ERP
ERP is by no means some sort of management fad - it is, in fact, a product of the increased automation of all aspects of the business environment that has been taking place over many decades. Many of the world's largest companies now use ERP software routinely, and increasingly many of the smaller ones are adopting it also. Despite its costs and risks, ERP platforms help companies compete better. Aside of this it becomes visible that integration between organizations forces those who act within this chain to deploy the ERP system that is used in the chain. This is stimulated by the strong trend since the late 1990s, to conduct business online (e-business) and this cannot be easily accomplished without an ERP platform working in the background.
One of the big improvement areas for ERP concerns increased flexibility. Many ERP systems are notoriously difficult to change once the initial design is complete. This is because most systems are parameters-driven. Once you have set the parameters you cannot change them anymore without far-reaching consequences for the implemented processes in the various modules that are often not to be foreseen. The result is than a reimplementation with all time and costs involved if it where the first implementation. As a result, many sensible change initiatives get killed, and companies can find it difficult to react quickly to rapid changes in the business environment. Organizations are thus demanding that ERP systems work more closely with other applications and that ERP suppliers make it easier to implement changes without the need for huge delays and massive budgets.
Also organizations are starting to link their computer systems together so that even greater efficiencies may be realized. This has lead to the concept of Extended ERP, where moves are afoot to deploy computer systems which not only look inside the information of your own company, but can actually query the core business data of customer and supplier systems in real-time.
Looking at the two remaining suppliers, Oracle and SAP one can see that they are working on this issue. Oracle with self developed tools, advocating that they now can deliver a services oriented architecture
Another development that is already taking place is the consolidation phase. From the big five, SAP, PeopleSoft, Baan, Oracle and JDEdwards that were there at the beginning of the 21st century now only SAP and Oracle remain, fighting for market share.
There is not very much market share to gain among the larger and especially international companies. They already have their ERP in place and companies are reluctant to replace their implemented ERP by something else because of the large investments that were made during the implementation en the invested knowledge on these systems.
Market share can however be gained by take-overs of other smaller ERP suppliers. We saw this happen with the take-over of Baan by SSA, JDedwards by PeopleSoft, PeopleSoft by Oracle en finally Retek by Oracle. More takeovers will take place on mid-market level . In fact this has become a fight for absolute dominance. SAP is the biggest, but Oracle is growing fast thanks to these take-overs. Oracle shows more success in these take-overs than SAP.
But SAP has reacted with a brilliant strategy. They have bought a PeopleSoft development house, Tomorrownow, and are now offering PeopleSoft customers the choice between the:
• Safe Harbor: Customers can stop their expensive support with PeopleSoft and bring this support for half of the price at Tomorrownow. They can also remain for en period of 10 years on their current version. PeopleSoft allowed just a period of five years. So customers are not pushed to do major expensive upgrades after a couple of years
• Safe Passage: SAP refunds 75% of the license costs customers have initially paid for their PeopleSoft applications as a discount for the SAP licenses. MySap is implemented at the customer and he will be able to migrate application by application whenever he feels up to it.
This latest strategy looks contrary tot the statement mentioned earlier that customers are not likely to change their current ERP applications by another. This is however not the case, because the customer knows that eventually PeopleSoft will no longer exist and will be replaced by Oracle apps. So a migration will always be necessary. SAP has eliminated the Oracle advantage that customers were facing a large disinvestment of their PeopleSoft licenses. The choice is now whether to migrate to Oracle or to SAP. Customers are now in the position to think “out-of-the-box”. The choice is no longer blurred by discussions on disinvestments but can be made on:
• Functionality: The functionality of SAP fits better with European companies. The functionality of Oracle fits better with US companies
• Technical architecture: Sap consists on a lot of “best-of-breed” products and is database independent: Oracle consists mostly of self-developed applications and tools and only works with their own database
• Vendor strategy: Anglo-Saxon model of Oracle vs. European model of SAP
However because of the lack of analyzing capacity at the customers it is not to be expected that more than 10% of the PeopleSoft customers will exchange their licenses for SAP.
Still also the customers who remain with PeopleSoft/Oracle will have a chance to renegotiate with their suppliers for better terms and lower support costs.
Also other ERP vendors, mostly local players will take part of the battle, especially focusing on the crumbs. These crumbs can for instance be companies that suffer financial problems and see the consolidation battle as en excuse to get off the expensive support costs of PeopleSoft and Oracle and exchange the product for a far more cheaper local solution, that can even fit better for the local purposes than the international systems of SAP and Oracle.
The second decade of the 21st century will present a huge effort for most of the 12.700 PeopleSoft customers to define which road they want to travel. It will also be interesting to see which supplier will win the war and what will happen than. Will there be a party take part in this struggle. Only Microsoft has the funds to interfere. But Microsoft is a close ally of SAP and has a lot to loose if would participate. Their current ERP products are far from able to cope with SAP and Oracle. The coming years will give an answer to these questions, but at this moment the PeopleSoft and JDedwards customers are more concerned what he should do the coming five years. The following case provides an analysis for such a customer, the possible roads to follow and the risks of these various roads involved.
Holland Casino
Holland Casino
Background
Thanks to a series of implementations and upgrades Holland Casino succeeded in 2003 to develop a complete integrated solution for Finance, HR and payroll with PeopleSoft. Also an extensive BPR project was implemented and new HR processes were automated, like competence management and training management.
Than in December 2004 the take-over followed, leaving Holland Casino with a burden of questions how to proceed. Within a month time the decision was made not to wait until all clouds around what will happen in the future with PeopleSoft/Oracle are cleared, but directly starting an analysis of the various possible scenarios en routings to follow.
The loss of integration was considered the main threat of the Oracle takeover. How shall we succeed at a certain time again to provide the organization with a similar integrated solution with the new product line Oracle is promising to deliver. So it is not so much the various products that are a risk but the way they are working with each other.
Of course acquired knowledge of PeopleSoft of the team members will be a disinvestment, but these things happen. One specific crucial part of the integration is the payroll process. It is completely unclair how in the future this process will be integrated in the Oracle environment. Therefore it will have the highest priority when it comes to choose which way to follow.
The basic question that predominates the following scenarios is: Will Holland Casino accept the take over and follow the strategy of Oracle, or will the take over result in a debate if we want to go through with Oracle/PeopleSoft or choose for another option, like SAP, a local product or business process outsourcing?
First we will focus on the Oracle strategy and which possible scenarios can be the result of it.
Outline Oracle strategy
The take over of PeopleSoft by Oracle has two main reasons:
• Getting more market share and so threaten the no 1 position of Oracle
• Getting hold on the very lucrative support fee of the PeopleSoft customers. The estimate is that a return on investment can be obtained within 3 years.
Oracle communicated the following stages for the absorption Of PeopleSoft in its own application suite.
1. Deployment of PeopleSoft 8.9 in 2005
2. Oracle e-business suite 12 in 2006 based on SOA (100% Java) PeopleSoft Enterprise 9 in 2006 which can be considered a dead end
3. JDedwards 8.12 in 2006
4. Components FUSION (data hubs and transaction db’s) in 2006. All 8.000 developers will be working on this project
5. FUSION applications available in 2007. These applications will contain minimal the same functionality as the Oracle apps version 12, combined with the functionality of PeopleSoft 8.9
6. Migration in 2008, automated update
7. Until then maintenance of THREE development surroundings!
A remark with this outline. The concurrent development of three different products with different development tools looks difficult, especially if all developers are targeted at one product.
Holland Casino analyzed three possible scenarios for the coming 5 years:
Scenario 1 – The rest assured scenario
Oracle supports and develops the current PeopleSoft products until 2013 and integrates all Oracle and PeopleSoft products into an integrated suite
This scenario requires that Oracle during a period of eight years will do system development with three different development tools, will support various third party middleware products next to its own and third party databases. This support is at this moment contrary to the Oracle strategy concerning the Oracle products.
This scenario would also mean that there will be a version 9 of PeopleSoft. Next to the development of version 9 a new product will be developed, called Fusion, containing the best functionality of the current Oracle and PeopleSoft products. Both products will be ready in 2008
Customers are allowed to migrate from 2008 to the new products, but they don’t have to. They can wait until 2013. All products are being actively supported until then.
This scenario is communicated by Oracle during the various trials. It differs from previous take-overs, but there was never one of this size.
Migration towards the new product will only be supported for the highest version of de PeopleSoft product line. This is by the way congruent with the current PeopleSoft strategy on upgrades.
Probability of this scenario
The possibility that a supplier will maintain and develop two of the largest ERP systems at the same time with totally different architecture, development tools and functionality during a period of eight years looks highly unlikely, because it is very costly and lacks focus.
This scenario is only possible if Oracle intends to integrate both products in a new application. Question will remain: Will Oracle be successful to integrate this new product with their middleware. It looks nearly impossible from a technical point of view that they are able to reengineer al their products and middleware within a period of three years (2008). According to research done by Information Week in January 2005 2/3 of a group of 310 PeopleSoft customers in the USA consider this as highly unlikely. This opinion is shared by 51% of a group Oracle customers.
However this is the scenario that Oracle communicates and it fits the struggle they want to enforce with SAP. This scenario is only possible if Oracle succeeds in keeping PeopleSoft developers on board.
During the webcam on January 17 again this scenario was mentioned by Oracle, however there were some inconsistencies in the presentations. Larry Ellison mentioned the development of a version 9 of PeopleSoft while at the same time he declared that all the developers of Oracle and PeopleSoft would go working on the Fusion project. You cannot develop two applications at the same time.
Somewhat later was mentioned that an automated migration toll would be available in 2008 to migrate the last PeopleSoft 8 towards Fusion. Version 9 was no longer mentioned.
The conclusion is that at this moment it is a possible scenarion that however can be readjusted if the integration becomes troublesome because of the variety of products that have to be integrated.
Holland Casino strategy for this scenario
This scenario is the most favorable for Holland Casino. There is enough time to prepare for a migration en to invest in knowledge on the new architecture and development tools. However it is important to do a fit/gap research in 2005. An upgrade towards version 8.9 can be done in 2006 as well in 2007. Migration towards Fusion should be planned in 2009, a year after the first release. It is to be expected that the first release will contain a lot of faults and errors.
Scenario 2: The take it or leave it scenario.
ORACLE supports for the time being the existing PeopleSoft products but will end this within a period of 30 months. Tools will be provided for a migration to the Oracle suite.
This scenario requires fast decision making. The following questions are relevant:
1. Will Holland Casino remains a Dutch organization. In that case it is possible to dunk PeopleSoft and implement a local product that is more orchestrated for the Dutch regulations and easier to manage.
2. If Holland Casino intends to become an international organization it must chose for an international product, like PeopleSoft/Oracle. A choice for SAP is than also a possibility. An advantage of SAP is that the payroll functionality is localized for the Dutch market and proven technology. A migration to SAP will be cheaper than the Oracle/PeopleSoft migration because it is quite clear at this moment how the migration should be performed, while nothing is known of the future Fusion product and because of the possibility to do payroll in house. SAP can also be the choice in case of question 1
3. Does Holland Casino accepts that it is forced towards an Oracle product with one update en one migration within 5 years, not knowing what the result will be, or do we define an "out- of-the-box" strategy. For instance we are going to outsource all our ERP systems to a third party, like TomorrowNow. This party has been taken over by SAP in January 2005.
Probability of this scenario
Gartner describes this scenario as the most probable in a presentation of November, 4 2004. It fits the behavior that Oracle has shown in the past and it fits the overall strategy of Oracle to provide an integrated SOA architecture for all its products with no room for third party products providing an environment with Oracle apps, Oracle application server, Oracle middleware and Oracle database.
Oracle risks that a number of clients will turn their back that would remain at Oracle in case of scenario 1. The expectation is that more than 75% (PeopleSoft has now 12.700 customers) of the customers will remain customer because of the investments in the past and the lack of knowledge of other environments like SAP.
The announcements that Oracle will put all the developers, Oracle AND PeopleSoft, on the FUSION project seems to support this scenario. However it conflicts profoundly with everything Oracle is now promising and would in the end backfire. Also would Oracle give way for lawsuits because of lack of integrity. In the US there is a lot of regulations on this issue. Therefore we consider this scenario as least probable.
HC strategy for this scenario
The high speed of this scenario highlights the question if HC should let it be pushed to go along with Oracle. High speed also leads to higher risk and one should keep in mind that the future will probably not provide a better environment than HC has now in place. High speed also leads often to products that are not 100% tested.
If HC decides it will not be pushed, the coming lack of support does not pose a problem for the short term. All PeopleSoft environments are stable, including middleware, databases and system environment. The problem will start to occur if one of the components other than the application is no longer supported, for instance Microsoft 2000. A newer version effects all other components and one will have to migrate if that occurs. This situation will come up in 2006.
If HC chooses for this scenario than all PeopleSoft applications must be upgraded towards version 8.9 in 2006. The contract with the payroll provider must be terminated on December, 31 2005, else a new contract period of three years will be at hand.
In 2007 or 2008, depending when Oracle gives the signal, the migration towards Fusion will take place. The results for payroll cannot, at this moment, be assessed
Considering the risks other routes than the major upgrade to PeopleSoft 8.9/migration to Fusion will be more in favor.
Scenario 3: The reality scenario
Oracle pursues scenario 2 and will diminish support for existing PeopleSoft customers, who don’t want to migrate directly in 2008, but minimal support will remain until 2013
Oracle will provide as little support as possible for the third party products, like weblogic and databases, like DB2 and SQL
This scenario provides Holland Casino with the opportunity to develop a sound strategy to retain or recreate the existing integration. It is however prudent to investigate as soon as possible the ins and outs of an upgrade towards 8.9 because of this integration. Again the out of the box solution for another supplier is possible in this scenario.
Was PeopleSoft not to be discussed in the payroll implementation project in 2003 and therefore the current solution was obvious, now everything is open. We should consider the best solution for Holland Casino for HR and Finance based on integration, functionality, risks and costs. It is very important to notice in the decision process that Holland Casino is a typically Dutch organization that has no benefits to gain from an international product, like PeopleSoft or Oracle. On the contrary products that are developed for the Dutch market will provide mores specified functionality, like support for national legislation, than an international product. As an institution we are financially spoken not that complicated.
The lack of support for the short term is not so much of a problem because of the current stable environment. Support is most needed when an upgrade is at hand and not during the consolidation period afterwards. We must however consider the risk that the third party products on which PeopleSoft is running (Windows 2000, Oracle 8.7.2 and weblogic) are end-of-life cycle and we cannot for a long period remain working with these products.
Probability of this scenario
I consider this scenario the most likely. It fits best with the reasons mentioned why Oracle started this operation in the first place: getting market share and getting hold on the lucrative support fees. It allows Oracle to put all its developers on the new product, so in terms of strategy it allows Oracle to focus. It provides Oracle with the opportunity to use the new version 12 of its suite as a kind of preparation for the beta version of Fusion, especially for the improvement of the webtechnology. I think that this is also the case with version 9 of PeopleSoft. No adding of functionality but preparing the application for the Oracle architecture.
Within this scenario further development of PeopleSoft will be marginal, at best some Java components for, for instance, component interface. Oracle will discourage new customers who want to buy PeopleSoft modules and will try to attract them to Oracle modules.
Despite the fact that this scenario buys time for the PeopleSoft customers it is important to take care not to find oneself in a “house of the deceased” situation. A situation where there will be neglect and little support. Customers who after 2008 are not making any visible moves towards upgrading or migration will face various forms of pressure to do so.
One can think of contractual pressure. A customer is not obliged to follow this up, but what is his choice than?
As an example: The application environment in the case of Holland Casino is completely stable. It is possible to keep it there and discontinue the support contract. However PeopleSoft just supplies the application and not the third party products that go with it (middleware, webserver, database). For these components one also have to stay on the old versions resulting in al kind of control problems. The same goes with interface to other applications. It will become harder and harder to keep communicating with current interfaces. Besides this one should make all kinds of customizations to keep up with new legislation and other rules.
HC strategy for this scenario
If we decide to go for the Oracle migration we will have to investigate this year what an upgrade towards PeopleSoft 8.9 will mean, so that the upgrade can take place in 2006. Important issues to investigate are:
• The choice for the applicable middleware and webservices. We must keep in mind that the probability that Oracle will also takeover BEA is major. In the last case the choice for BEA is without saying
• Holland Casino depends on an external party for its customizations in PeopleSoft for the payroll process. It is therefore of the utmost importance to level with the supplier on the coming strategy. The payroll process will again be the focus for the time table Holland Casino will have to follow like the implementation of the current process in 2003. It is not quite impossible that the supplier will start to cut down its activities for PeopleSoft, because there will be les and less demand for PeopleSoft development. This must be considered as a main risk.
For this scenario also counts that we should analyze other products, because there is in fact no surplus value to follow the Oracle strategy. The last part of the article will do some compares considering risks and opportunities.
Conclusion
Three scenarios are mentioned:
1. Oracle keeps developing PeopleSoft actively till 2013 and offers from 2008 a migration tool for a transfer to a new integrated product Fusion that will provide at least the current functionality
2. Oracle forces customers to migrate to a new product within the period of 30 months
3. Oracle provides minimal support until 2013 and will from 2007/2008 try to persuade customers to migrate to the new product before 2013 but without force
Actions to be taken when Holland Casino wants to follow the Oracle route
Scenario
Fit/gap research
PeopleSoft 8.9
Implementation
Date 8.9
Migration to Fusion
1
Yes, but not necessary in 2005
Not necessary sooner than 2007
Yes, not necessary sooner than 2008/2009
2
Yes, highest priority
2006
If yes, then in 2007 of 2008
3
Yes
2006
2008
A company want to manage its largest risk, even if it is not the most probable, in the most simple way. Therefore it is wise that aside from the PeopleSoft/Oracle route also others will be researched.
The next chapter will provide an overview of the various possible routes and the risks and costs involved.
The route to follow
Only scenario 2 provides a direct problem for Holland Casino. For the time being scenario 3 is considered the most probable. This means that we must start with a fit/gap analysis this year along with research into alternative options. These options are:
1. migration to Oracle 11.10 in stead of PeopleSoft 8.9 and later migration to Fusion. The idea behind this route is that de migration from one version of Oracle to Fusion will be less complicated. Also the current version of Oracle is a stable version and we will know what we are getting. An integration problem remains with the payroll process. This issue could be handled with doing payroll in company. Oracle offers this functionality from 2002.
2. SAP. From a customer point of view this looks like the most safe route on the long term. There will always be newer versions, also with SAP, but it is not to be expected that in a mid term period SAP will reengineer there core applications because of the complicated structure and the propriety infrastructure. SAP will go on to provide toolsets to extend functionality, like Netweaver. So a more stable situation is presented looking at the future.
3. Microsoft with Exapta. If other routes than PeopleSoft/Oracle are researched one must give attention to Microsoft, because it is a major player. At this moment the functionality and product strategy are not very clear. Therefore the same risks as with PeopleSoft/Oracle emerge. Aan advantage is that Holland Casino uses only Microsoft products for its development environment, so it would fit the internal development strategy
4. Local products. Because Holland Casino is a typical Dutch organization it can be assumed that for the more administrative side of HR local products will prove more adapted to the local administration than PeopleSoft. For Finance the same. Problem will most likely be the lack of support for implemented high level HR instruments, like Training management and competence management. These processes are already implemented and in place and it will be a absolutely no-go to get back to paper and pencil. However it is possible that with a workaround possibilities do occur.
5. Risk Outsourcing: application management is outsourced to a third party. This is a route that in fact is a no-choice, but stay where you are and pay a third party to carry all the risks. The decision to do this has to lie with the business. Outsourcing must not considered lightly. There are surely risks involved, especially concerning the communication on daily actions and procedures between customer and supplier.
Routes, risks, opportunities and costs
The following overview is at this time not complete, but does provide on headlines risks, opportunities and costs involved.
Routes
Risks
Opportunities
Project costs
Yearly costs
PeopleSoft 8.9/Fusion
• No knowledge what the final product will offer technical as well as functional
• Only knowledge on the final product with the supplier of the product
• Possible decline of support for payrolling
€ 1.25 mio, estimated
€ 200 k, the same as now
Oracle 11.10/Fusion
• No knowledge what the final product will offer technical as well as functional
• Only knowledge on the final product with the supplier of the product
• Possible decline of support for payrolling
• Possible easier migration Oracle – Fusion than PeopleSoft – Fusion
• Possible payroll in company (to be analyzed)
€ 1.25 mio, estimated
€ 200 k, the same as now
SAP
• Extensive knowledge available on the product
• Fully localized payroll in company
• Knowledge on the product is also available other than just the supplier
• SAP has by means of Tomorrow-now also PeopleSoft knowledge in house
€ 1.25 mio, estimated
€ 180 K
Local products
To be examined
To be examined
€ 0.5 mio estimated
€ 40 K
Microsoft
To be examined
To be examined
€ 1 mio estimated
€ 100 K
Final Conclusion
The coming years customers of PeopleSoft will have to make an analysis for their own situation and how to react to the arisen situation. The outcome can differ for each organization. Holland Casino, a Dutch foundation with a rather flat administration cannot be compared with an international company that produces goods. It is easily to imagine that the more complicated the business of a company is, the more one will choose to remain with the current supplier, hoping for a good result.
Still it is important for all customers of PeopleSoft to realize that in the end they will have something completely different from what they have now and the must make the choice if they want to go that way.
