How Some ERP Vendors Demonstrated - Warts And All
<
Overview
The subject of this case study is the synopsis of a crucial step within
every software selection process - finalist vendors' scripted scenarios
software demonstrations; this particular series of events took place in
February/March 2001. The importance of this milestone in any software
selection undertaking has been widely publicized (for more information,
see An
Overview of the Knowledge Based Selection Process). Demonstrations
can and should be grueling for both vendors and users, as they are the
only way to discern how a software application behaves under real world
expectations before any firm commitment and point of no return happens.
The
company involved in this case study embarked on the selection of an ERP/business
applications package that would satisfy its needs and return maximum business
value. TEC was retained as a neutral process facilitator with an intimate
knowledge of the market/vendors and no vested interest (e.g., future system
integrating opportunity) in the outcome of the selection.
About
this Note:
This
is a two part note with Part One
covered the Scripted Scenario Demonstrations. Part Two discusses the specific
results of the demonstrations with recommendations for users facing a
similar selection process.
Rating
of Vendor Preparation and Performance
Here
we examine the preparation and performance of each vendor, giving each
a general rating. The categories we examine are:
- Show
vs. Tell
- Preparation
of Script Items
- Ability
to Follow Scripts or Mapping Document
- Ability
to Finish During the Allotted Time
Show
vs. Tell
| Oracle |
Fair
- The demo team routinely neglected to show functionality and only
verbally addressed many of the script items. |
| J.D.
Edwards |
Good
- The demo team spent the majority of their time showing functionality
rather than talking about it. |
| SAP |
Excellent
- The demo team spent significantly more time showing functionality
rather than talking about it. |
| IFS |
Excellent
- The demo team spent significantly more time showing functionality
rather than talking about it. The shining moment was allowing the
selection team members to conduct certain system transactions. |
Preparation of Script Items
| Oracle |
Good
- The demo team was familiar with the most of the script items and
was prepared to answer the majority of the script-related questions. |
| J.D.
Edwards |
Excellent
- The demo team was familiar with the script items and was prepared
to answer script-related questions. |
| SAP |
Excellent
- The demo team was familiar with the script items and was prepared
to answer script-related questions. |
| IFS |
Excellent
- The demo team was familiar with the script items and was prepared
to answer script-related questions. |
Ability to Follow Scripts or Mapping Document
| Oracle |
Fair
- The demo team complicated the process by significantly reorganizing
the scripts and failed to follow the mapping document, often leaving
the team confused and frustrated. |
| J.D.
Edwards |
Excellent
- The demo team organized their screens to match the high level sections
of the scripts. They also followed their mapping document. |
| SAP |
Good
- The demo team did a satisfactory job of following the scripts although
they frequently switched presenters and did not reorganize their screens
to match the scripts. |
| IFS |
Excellent
- The demo team prepared an HTML document in the order of the scripts
that hyper-linked to the pertinent system sessions. For the most part
the team followed the scripts in the original order. |
Ability to Finish During the Allotted Time
| Oracle |
Good
- The demo team finished the scripts with acceptable requests for
additional time. Some digressions were long and could have been avoided
though. |
| J.D.
Edwards |
Good
- The demo team finished the scripts with acceptable requests for
additional time. The team also paced themselves well with only minor
digressions. |
| SAP |
Good
- The demo team finished the scripts and requested very little additional
time. The team also paced themselves well with only minor digressions. |
| IFS |
Good
- The demo team finished the scripts without taking additional time.
The team also paced themselves well with only minor digressions. |
Results
and User Recommendations
The
moral of the story should not be that a dazzling demonstration ability
only will mean securing a business - a plethora of other factors influence
the decision, such as the product architecture (for more information,
see Great Product: Too Bad The Architecture Doesn't Fit), total cost of
ownership (TOC), site reference visits/calls outcomes, etc. For these
reasons, the winner of the entire selection process will not hereby be
disclosed.
Conversely
however, a bad demonstration performance will very likely seal the vendor's
fate. Clients, as a rule, see in the vendor's diligence in preparing for
the demo an indication of their future service and support experience
with the vendor. Even large, successful enterprise applications vendors
can fail when it comes to product demonstrations. Lack of preparation
is the usual culprit, but vendors are not solely to blame. A diligent
approach to preparing scripted scenario demonstrations by all parties
involved (vendors, users, and the selection facilitator), particularly
in terms of the demo's scope feasibility, will ensure that vendors convey
the message and users obtain the insights they need to make a decision.
Based
on the above analysis of data in the decision model, our client was able
to clearly differentiate the vendors and bring out the strengths and weaknesses
of each. Some other advantages of performing a thorough, documented scripted
scenarios process are worth mentioning:
- The
best-placed vendor still failed to satisfy almost 25% of the criteria
straight away. Such shortcomings, while disconcerting, can still provide
considerable leverage during final negotiations if managed skillfully.
- The
discrepancy in rankings of vendors after responding to RFP and after
the scripted scenarios (see Figures 1 & 2 in Part 1) indicate that
one vendor's "Yes" may be less valid than the other vendor's "Yes,
but", and the importance of putting the products through their paces.
However, a neutral expert's presence is preferable as to discern the
substance from a mere ability to demonstrate.
- When
more than one vendor ranks close within a given set of areas, the
decision model provides the supporting material required to justify
further investigations. These include scripted scenario demonstrations
follow-ups and client reference visits, both of which were utilized
by the manufacturer in this engagement.
Finally,
this case brings out an important fact of software selections that is
often overlooked - the best solution almost always involves compromise.
In this engagement, having the results in the selection tool provided
a means for setting expectations among project team members and senior
management. Such disclosure at an early stage can prevent disappointments
later in the selection process.
Note:
This selection involved the use of TEC's decision support tool ERGO
2001. For more information on ERGO 2001 see ERGO
2001 IT Evaluation Tool).
If your
company is interested in TEC in knowledge based selection contact sales@technologyevaluation.com.