Re: ALF Expense Analysis

Jeff , that may be one of the most sensible suggestions I've heard.
Mapics, think about that one, think real hard.
Instead of not giving current customers any real good reasons to stay with
Mapics
 you would be giving us tangible, visible proof that Mapics is moving
forward.
It's kind of sad that the only argument I can come up with now is that it
would be
 too costly and disruptive to switch. That argument is getting harder and
harder to sell.
In a head to head totally new installation, (just suppose),
   the Mapics most widely in use would not even make the final 3.
In the long run if Mapics does not do something like Jeff suggests it could
cost the whole business.


Mike Bennett - Information Services Manager
Kimray Inc.
52 NW 42nd Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
405-525-6601
www.kimray.com
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Green" <jgreen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'MAPICS ERP System Discussion'" <mapics-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 7:32 AM
Subject: RE: ALF Expense Analysis


> I've been lurking here for awhile, so I guess it's time to throw my 2
> cents in.  I don't think Konrad is the only frustrated customer out
> here.  I know I am asked frequently what we receive for the ALF money we
> pay each year and I have a hard time justifying it against the 1 or 2
> PCM's we load and the 10 or so support calls we make.  I agree with Dale
> in that there are intangibles that are there, but it is difficult to
> illustrate those to management.  I think MAPICS could accomplish quit a
> bit if they would start 'giving' away a piece of client software to
> replace one of your existing applications every time you pay your ALF.
> This would spread a lot of goodwill among the existing customer base
> (who help fund the development), and help reduce MAPICS support costs
> for older legacy applications.
>
> Jeff Green
> ERP Manager
> Metal Sales Manufacturing
> Sellersburg, IN
> www.mtlsales.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Snyder [mailto:jeffreygsnyder@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 8:36 PM
> To: mapics-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: ALF Expense Analysis
>
>
>    Always good to hear at least one customer out there is happy with
> MAPICS
>
>     Sometimes i get sooo fustrated from all the bashing on this
>    thread...maybe  the grass just looks greener on the other side ???
>
>
>
>    Thanks again Dale, for the breath of fresh air.  Konrad  never ceases
> to
>    amaze me.
>
>
>
>    Jeff Snyder,  CPIM
>
>    Mapics Consultant
>
>
>
>    From: DaleGindlesperger@xxxxxxxxxxx
>    Reply-To: MAPICS ERP System Discussion <MAPICS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>    To: MAPICS ERP System Discussion <MAPICS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>    Subject: RE: ALF Expense Analysis
>    Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 15:43:10 -0500
>    Hi Dale,
>    Yeah, I think the ALF is pretty steep myself - it's easily the
> largest
>    single item in my budget. But I think I still get decent value for
> it,
>    especially as I plan on upgrading to R7 as soon as they finish CSM.
> We've
>    used Browser since 1999, and we are increasing our usage, and at
> least
>    it's
>    a lot more stable than it used to be. Of course, that could be
> because of
>    the newer versions of Winwoes being a little better than the old
> versions.
>    I was initally concerned about the mismash of languages, as Konrad
>    mentioned (I think he missed a couple, like PowerBuilder for those of
> us
>    running MDCC, and probably some others), but they seem to work fine.
> I am,
>    however, very much looking forward to running in a full Java
> environment
>    on
>    R7.x when we convert.
>    One thing to keep in mind is that our ALFs don't just fund existing
>    application enhancements. They also fund e:Info and the folks at the
>    response line, which is worth a lot to some of us. It's great to get
> a
>    speedy response via e-mail, and generally fast response via phone
> when I
>    or
>    my people need to talk to a human bean on something weird that is
>    happening. There is also continuing enhancement to some older
> modules,
>    like the Offline Shipping Enhancement, and such. Also, it costs a lot
> to
>    fund R&D for the new hardware, modules, and languages (WebSphere and
>    such).
>    On a tangent - Konrad, I noticed no one said they have loaded 5118
> yet. I
>    have it sitting in my drawer, waiting to see if it's OK. Hasn't
> ANYONE put
>    it on?
>    Dale Gindlesperger
>    IT Manager/Special Projects Leader
>    Fleetwood Folding Trailers, Inc.
>    Somerset, PA
>    _______________________________________________
>    This is the MAPICS ERP System Discussion (MAPICS-L) mailing list
>    To post a message email: MAPICS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>    To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
>    visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/mapics-l
>    or email: MAPICS-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>    Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
>    at http://archive.midrange.com/mapics-l.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    From Beethoven to the Rolling Stones, your favorite music is always
>    playing on MSN Radio Plus. No ads, no talk. Trial month FREE!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the MAPICS ERP System Discussion (MAPICS-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: MAPICS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/mapics-l
> or email: MAPICS-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/mapics-l.
>