Re: For those moving off BPCS -- BPCS-L

I think both of you make many salient points.

We are an apparel company, more of a wholesale distributor than a manufacturer. 
 
BPCS was chosen several years ago by the "previous administration" and the 
implemenation failed.  The current team brought the implementation online 
succesfully.  The reasons for failure you can figure out:  scope creep, 
inadequately 
defined objectives, etc.  Nothing to do with the software.

One issue we have is that BPCS was an inappropriate choice for this particular 
business to begin with.  In a way, that had a lot to do with the scope creep:  
too much 
modification.  However, the company had committed plenty of money and resources 
to the implemenation and wanted to bring the systems online.  So, we did.

We have realized much in the way of productivity gains.  This isn't from the 
software 
per se, but rather from the process improvements made during implementation of 
the core ERP and the various bolt-on's we've done.  As David said, this is 
really 
where your gains materialize, although I must say that some productivity gains 
to 
come about purely from using the software to manage processes that were 
previously orphaned or not part of a prior solution.

We are on 4.05CD.  As Mitch said, many people stopped OGS and didn't move on to 
newer versions.  We are in that boat.  From everything that was reported (on 
this list 
and elsewhere), V6 was a horrible, painful, unstable product.  From our 
experience, 
OGS declined remarkably.  We dropped it because we didn't see the point in 
paying 
for something that wasn't useful to us.  When your own support staff does a 
better 
job at supporting the product than it's vendor, you know you are in trouble.

Because of all the reports of problems and issues with V6, we decided to avoid 
it.  
We would not put the business through that kind of pain for any reason.  
Implementations are difficult and challenging, but don't have to be painful if 
they are 
managed correctly.  If you're going to go through that process, the utlimate 
goal has 
to be that you are much better off when you are done.  We didn't see that 
happening 
with V6.  So, we didn't upgrade.  

Now we are in a position where we are contemplating an upgrade to our iSeries, 
and 
SSA wants a 3 year OGS contract to issue keys.  We won't pay it.  So, rather 
than 
write a check to SSA, we will write a check to our equipment vendor (Mitch, as 
a 
matter of fact) and get more hard disk space and ram.  Then, we will find a 
solution 
that is more appropriate for (and more directly supportive of) our particular 
business.  
We will not upgrade our current box (pay attention, IBM!), but rather will wait 
and 
place appropriate hardware under a new solution.  That may or may not be 
iSeries.

If SSA would be reasonable about keys, we would stay on BPCS.  We might even 
contemplate a move to V8.  But, they have chosen to take a hard-line position, 
which 
in our view eliminates them as a potential vendor.  We do commit to our 
vendors, but 
we expect our vendors to commit to us.  It is a two way street.  SSA appears to 
want 
a one-way street.  

--Chris


> 
> David,
> 
> While many of my clients, both BPCS and non-BPCS, have had a similar
> experiences, the fact is that unless a software user makes the commitment
> to the COMPANY that develops the software, many problems will exist.
> 
> Even though 4.05CD still works for most clients, SSA is a for-profit
> business and, believe it or not, has worked over the years to improve its
> software so they could sell more of it. Most clients of BPCS never made the
> move to newer versions, stopping the software support licenses (and the
> revenue that comes with it to SSA) which are vital to SSA's continued
> success. Many companies are doing that now - moving to V8 and getting on
> OGS. Which I personally think is probably a good idea for MOST companies -
> not all.
> 
> If more firms were to follow the lead of the software firms product
> lifecycle and new releases, they would be less prone to move off of the
> product.
> 
> This assumes that the software STILL handles the business requirements of
> the company that purchased it.
> 
> Climb on soapbox....
> 
> Now I know every company is different and I am sure that I will have
> several people give me examples that my logic is flawed......such is the
> nature of this list and public opinion. However I do think that most
> companies would like to stay on BPCS or PRMS or Infinium. The problem lies
> with the license contract, and I do not have to tell anyone here about
> those issues. IMHO, if SSA would be a tad bit more reasonable, and if
> clients would realize that there is VALUE in the software they have been
> using OGS free for several years AND if they would be open to newer version
> of the software that there business's have run on for years, I think there
> would be many more satisfied companies running this ERP solution.
> 
> my $.02
> 
> ....off soap box.
> 
> So I guess I agree with you... (Smile)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a word to those of you thinking of moving off of BPCS.  I am in the
> middle of an ERP implementation of 22 plants throughout North America.  The
> ERP system is not BPCS and after working with BPCS for 10 years as well as
> other ERP systems.  I wish the company I am working for choose BPCS or an
> application that had half the functionality of BPCS.  I always said ERP is
> ERP and all the application have similar functionality, in most cases very
> true, but not with all.  So be very caution, because you are probably going
> to find out the grass is not greener on the other side of the fence.  It is
> still green and the new software company will have the same functionality,
> their support sucks, the maintenance is costly, they will stop supporting
> your version and you are going to modify it.
> 
> And also remember the ROI comes from the business process improvement that
> takes place during the implementation not from the application as the
> software vendor is going to tell you.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dave
>