|
A review of new software products that can make a big difference to your business
Customer survey roundup no. 2*
 By Michael Burns
*This is an expanded version of an article that originally appeared in the April
2006 issue of CAmagazine.
Welcome to the results of our second annual customer survey of accounting and ERP systems.
The survey was announced in the September 2005 print edition of CAmagazine, and can be viewed at
http://www.camagazine.com/index.cfm/ci_id/27849/la_id/1.htm. Once again. the idea was to see how well
readers like the system they’re using, and how they rate the developers and implementation partners. We also
asked for some general feedback about return on investment and future plans. Here in this online article,
you’ll find additional information – including charts – that space constraints prevented us from running in
the print version.
To ensure the validity of the results, we accepted only one survey per organization and it
had to be filled out by an accountant with a CA, CMA, or CGA designation. This is a change from last year,
when we allowed only CA designations. We wanted to open up the survey to companies that don’t have CAs on
board.
We received 264 valid responses compared with 129 last year. The increase may be due to the
CMA and CGA responses. Also, vendors are beginning to recognize the importance of this survey and have
encouraged their customers to complete it. In fact, some of the value-added resellers of accounting and ERP
systems also submitted responses. Naturally, we rejected these because of the resellers’ bias.
We also gave potential respondents an additional incentive this year by holding a draw for
free entry to
The National IT Conference and Showcase for Accountants, to be held June 12-13, 2006 in Toronto. The
lucky winner was Karen Kojima, manager of treasury & investment accounting at the Ontario Pension
Board. Congratulations, Karen!
RESPONSES BY SYSTEM
|
System
|
Responses
|
% of total
|
|
ACCPAC Advantage
|
14
|
5.3%
|
|
ACCPAC Plus
|
2
|
0.8%
|
|
Adagio
|
21
|
8.0%
|
|
Avantage Pro
|
4
|
1.5%
|
|
Custom
|
3
|
1.1%
|
|
Epicor
|
4
|
1.5%
|
|
Great Plains
|
15
|
5.7%
|
|
JBA
|
2
|
0.8%
|
|
JD Edwards
|
5
|
1.9%
|
|
Jonas
|
4
|
1.5%
|
|
Minotaur
|
2
|
0.8%
|
|
MYOB
|
5
|
1.9%
|
|
Navision
|
6
|
2.3%
|
|
Oracle
|
5
|
1.9%
|
|
PeopleSoft
|
6
|
2.3%
|
|
Platinum
|
2
|
0.8%
|
|
QuickBooks
|
29
|
11.0%
|
|
SAP
|
8
|
3.0%
|
|
Simply Accounting
|
28
|
10.6%
|
|
SmartStream
|
2
|
0.8%
|
|
Solomon
|
2
|
0.8%
|
|
SYSPRO
|
28
|
10.6%
|
|
Syteline
|
2
|
0.8%
|
|
Traverse
|
3
|
1.1%
|
|
VADIM
|
2
|
0.8%
|
|
Visual Manufacturing
|
2
|
0.8%
|
|
Other
|
58
|
22.0%
|
|
|
264
|
100.0%
|
As you can see, it’s a fragmented market, with the “other” category (one-offs with only one
survey response) accounting for 22% of the responses. Don’t be too quick to judge market share based on the
number of responses, because it seems some of the vendors were more successful than others in encouraging
their clients to complete the survey. That said, it wasn’t surprising to see a similarity in the number of
responses for QuickBooks and Simply Accounting, since these two systems dominate small business in
Canada.
To compare the systems, we split them into high end, mid-market and small business. And
to improve the statistical validity of our analysis below, we also excluded those with fewer than five
responses. At the high end, the battle is between SAP and Oracle. As you may know, Oracle now owns JD Edwards
and PeopleSoft. In the mid-market, the big contenders are Sage (which purchased ACCPAC Advantage), Microsoft
(which purchased Great Plains and Navision) and SYSPRO.
HIGH END
|
System
|
Responses
|
% of total
|
|
JD Edwards
|
5
|
21%
|
|
Oracle
|
5
|
21%
|
|
PeopleSoft
|
6
|
25%
|
|
SAP
|
8
|
33%
|
|
|
24
|
100%
|
MID-MARKET
|
System
|
Responses
|
% of total
|
|
ACCPAC Advantage
|
14
|
22%
|
|
Great Plains
|
15
|
24%
|
|
Navision
|
6
|
10%
|
|
SYSPRO
|
28
|
44%
|
|
|
63
|
100%
|
SMALL BUSINESS
|
System
|
Responses
|
% of total
|
|
Adagio
|
21
|
25%
|
|
MYOB
|
5
|
6%
|
|
QuickBooks
|
29
|
35%
|
|
Simply Accounting
|
28
|
34%
|
|
|
83
|
100%
|
System size
The following chart will give you an idea of the size and costs related to high-end, mid-market and
small business systems.
|
System
|
High-end
|
Mid- market
|
Small business
|
|
Average licence fees
|
$4,000,000
|
$61,000
|
$1,300
|
|
Average number of simultaneous users
|
575
|
16
|
3
|
Overall ranking
We asked each respondent to score his or her system overall for financial, distribution and
manufacturing functionality. The possible responses were excellent (4), good (3), fair (2), poor (1) and N/A.
(We excluded N/As from our statistics, along with products with fewer than five responses. Note that this
approach applies to all the remaining statistics.) We will give credit to high-end and mid-market systems
with high scores of 3.5 or greater. We have not recognized high scores for small business because of a lack
in comparability to mid-market and high-end systems. Small business systems cost hundreds of dollars. The
average for mid-market systems in our survey was about $60,000 for licence fees. High-end systems averaged in
the millions of dollars. Naturally, the customers of mid-market and high-end systems are going to want a lot
more value for their investments.
Overall, respondents liked their financial systems the most, followed by manufacturing and
distribution. Looking at subtotals by tier for financial and distribution systems, the high end, on average,
did not score as well as the lower tiers. This may seem strange, but is due to greater expectations on the
part of high-end organizations. SAP and Great Plains (Microsoft
Dynamics GP) garnered high scores (3.5 and up) for financial systems, and SYSPRO did the
same for distribution.
HIGH END
|
System
|
Financial
|
Distribution
|
Manufacturing
|
|
JD Edwards
|
2.8
|
2.7
|
2.7
|
|
Oracle
|
3.2
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
|
PeopleSoft
|
3.2
|
2.0
|
2.0
|
|
SAP
|
3.5
|
2.8
|
3.0
|
|
|
3.2
|
2.5
|
2.6
|
MID-MARKET
|
System
|
Financial
|
Distribution
|
Manufacturing
|
|
ACCPAC Advantage
|
3.4
|
3.0
|
2.2
|
|
Great Plains
|
3.5
|
2.9
|
2.6
|
|
Navision
|
3.2
|
3.0
|
3.0
|
|
SYSPRO
|
3.4
|
3.5
|
3.3
|
|
|
3.4
|
3.1
|
2.8
|
SMALL BUSINESS
|
System
|
Financial
|
Distribution
|
Manufacturing
|
|
Adagio
|
3.7
|
3.3
|
3.0
|
|
MYOB
|
3.8
|
2.5
|
1.5
|
|
QuickBooks
|
3.2
|
2.7
|
2.1
|
|
Simply Accounting
|
3.4
|
2.8
|
2.4
|
|
|
3.5
|
2.8
|
2.2
|
Generic attributes
In terms of ease of use, flexibility, stability, security, documentation, reporting,
customization and value for money, the high-end systems didn’t measure up to mid-market and small business
systems, especially when it came to value for money.
Notice that small business systems have consistently higher scores than their mid-market and
high-end counterparts. This says a lot about the quality of these systems, but also reflects lower
expectations; on average, customers spent only a few hundred dollars to acquire them. High scores for
flexibility go to Oracle, Navision (Microsoft Dynamics NAV) and
SYSPRO, stability to SAP and SYSPRO, and value to
SYSPRO.
We can’t help but notice the high scores for MYOB for flexibility, customization and value.
What’s strange about this is that in 2001 Intuit Canada acquired the Canadian operations of MYOB Canada.
MYOB apparently decided to divest the Canadian operations as part of a strategy to focus on markets and
countries where MYOB has more growth opportunities. The MYOB respondents are all working with older releases
of the software. One of our questions was the date of the last upgrade and the average MYOB response was five
years ago.
HIGH END
|
System
|
Ease of use
|
Flexible
|
Stable
|
Secure
|
Doc’n
|
Rpt’g
|
Cust’n
|
Value
|
|
JD Edwards
|
2.2
|
3.0
|
3.0
|
2.8
|
2.4
|
2.6
|
2.2
|
2.5
|
|
Oracle
|
3.0
|
3.6
|
3.8
|
3.4
|
2.6
|
2.8
|
3.2
|
2.0
|
|
PeopleSoft
|
2.5
|
2.7
|
2.8
|
2.7
|
2.3
|
2.5
|
2.3
|
2.3
|
|
SAP
|
2.6
|
3.1
|
3.5
|
2.9
|
2.8
|
2.5
|
2.5
|
2.5
|
|
|
2.6
|
3.1
|
3.3
|
2.9
|
2.5
|
2.6
|
2.6
|
2.3
|
MID-MARKET
|
System
|
Ease of use
|
Flexible
|
Stable
|
Secure
|
Doc’n
|
Rpt’g
|
Cust’n
|
Value
|
|
ACCPAC Advantage
|
2.9
|
3.2
|
3.4
|
2.9
|
2.8
|
2.1
|
2.4
|
2.9
|
|
Great Plains
|
3.1
|
3.3
|
3.1
|
2.9
|
2.9
|
2.6
|
2.9
|
3.1
|
|
Navision
|
3.2
|
3.5
|
3.2
|
2.2
|
2.3
|
3.2
|
3.2
|
3.0
|
|
SYSPRO
|
3.1
|
3.6
|
3.4
|
3.0
|
3.0
|
3.0
|
3.4
|
3.5
|
|
|
3.1
|
3.4
|
3.3
|
2.7
|
2.8
|
2.7
|
3.0
|
3.1
|
SMALL BUSINESS
|
System
|
Ease of use
|
Flexible
|
Stable
|
Secure
|
Doc’n
|
Rpt’g
|
Cust’n
|
Value
|
|
Adagio
|
3.4
|
3.8
|
3.4
|
3.1
|
3.2
|
3.2
|
3.7
|
3.6
|
|
MYOB
|
3.4
|
4.0
|
3.4
|
3.0
|
3.2
|
2.8
|
4.0
|
4.0
|
|
QuickBooks
|
3.2
|
3.5
|
3.0
|
2.8
|
3.0
|
2.7
|
3.3
|
3.3
|
|
Simply Accounting
|
2.9
|
3.3
|
3.3
|
3.2
|
2.9
|
2.3
|
3.4
|
3.6
|
|
|
3.2
|
3.6
|
3.3
|
3.0
|
3.1
|
2.8
|
3.6
|
3.6
|
Developer ratings
For overall satisfaction, continuous improvement, documentation, support and upgrade reliability,
most of the systems could use some improvement, except for the small business developers.
SYSPRO scored well in the “continues to improve” category.
HIGH END
|
System
|
Overall
|
Continues to improve
|
Documentation
|
Support
|
Upgrade reliability
|
|
JD Edwards
|
2.8
|
2.6
|
2.6
|
3.0
|
2.5
|
|
Oracle
|
3.2
|
3.2
|
2.8
|
2.4
|
3.2
|
|
PeopleSoft
|
2.2
|
2.0
|
1.5
|
1.8
|
2.0
|
|
SAP
|
2.8
|
3.0
|
2.5
|
2.6
|
2.8
|
|
|
2.7
|
2.7
|
2.4
|
2.5
|
2.6
|
MID-MARKET
|
System
|
Overall
|
Continues to improve
|
Documentation
|
Support
|
Upgrade reliability
|
|
ACCPAC Advantage
|
2.8
|
2.6
|
2.5
|
2.5
|
3.0
|
|
Great Plains
|
3.0
|
3.1
|
2.9
|
2.9
|
3.0
|
|
Navision
|
2.8
|
3.0
|
2.3
|
2.6
|
3.0
|
|
SYSPRO
|
3.3
|
3.5
|
2.8
|
3.4
|
3.3
|
|
|
3.0
|
3.0
|
2.7
|
2.8
|
3.1
|
SMALL BUSINESS
|
System
|
Overall
|
Continues to improve
|
Documentation
|
Support
|
Upgrade reliability
|
|
Adagio
|
3.6
|
3.7
|
3.0
|
3.6
|
3.6
|
|
MYOB
|
3.5
|
2.0
|
2.0
|
1.3
|
2.5
|
|
QuickBooks
|
3.2
|
3.0
|
2.7
|
2.8
|
3.1
|
|
Simply Accounting
|
3.3
|
3.3
|
3.0
|
3.0
|
3.3
|
|
|
3.4
|
3.0
|
2.7
|
2.7
|
3.1
|
Implementer ratings
For overall satisfaction, adherence to schedule and budget, support, product knowledge and ability
to improve business processes, the implementation partners for mid-market and small business systems came out
ahead of their high-end peers. This is ironic in that the implementation partners for high-end systems are
usually very handsomely paid and work for large consulting practices. That said, the systems are more
complex, so perhaps this explains the lower ratings. Congratulations to the implementers of
SYSPRO, which was the only system that landed high scores in most of the implementer
rankings.
HIGH END
|
System
|
Overall
|
On time
|
On budget
|
Support
|
Product knowledge
|
Improve processes
|
|
JD Edwards
|
3.2
|
3.0
|
2.6
|
3.7
|
3.4
|
2.2
|
|
Oracle
|
3.0
|
2.8
|
3.0
|
3.3
|
3.0
|
3.0
|
|
PeopleSoft
|
2.5
|
2.7
|
2.5
|
2.2
|
2.2
|
2.2
|
|
SAP
|
2.8
|
2.5
|
2.4
|
2.4
|
2.6
|
2.6
|
|
|
2.9
|
2.7
|
2.6
|
2.9
|
2.8
|
2.5
|
MID-MARKET
|
System
|
Overall
|
On time
|
On budget
|
Support
|
Product knowledge
|
Improve processes
|
|
ACCPAC Advantage
|
2.6
|
2.5
|
2.6
|
2.4
|
2.6
|
2.3
|
|
Great Plains
|
3.2
|
3.1
|
2.8
|
3.1
|
3.0
|
2.9
|
|
Navision
|
3.0
|
2.8
|
2.7
|
2.8
|
2.8
|
2.5
|
|
SYSPRO
|
3.7
|
3.7
|
3.6
|
3.6
|
3.7
|
3.4
|
|
|
3.1
|
3.0
|
2.9
|
3.0
|
3.0
|
2.8
|
SMALL BUSINESS
|
System
|
Overall
|
On time
|
On budget
|
Support
|
Product knowledge
|
Improve processes
|
|
Adagio
|
3.6
|
3.5
|
3.3
|
3.6
|
3.4
|
3.4
|
|
MYOB
|
3.7
|
3.3
|
3.7
|
2.0
|
2.7
|
2.7
|
|
QuickBooks
|
3.1
|
3.1
|
3.3
|
3.1
|
3.0
|
3.1
|
|
Simply Accounting
|
3.3
|
3.3
|
3.3
|
3.1
|
3.3
|
2.9
|
|
|
3.4
|
3.3
|
3.4
|
2.9
|
3.1
|
3.0
|
Return on investment
We asked about payback (no. of years), improved customer service (ranging from a high of 4 to a low
of 1; these numbers apply to the rest of the questions in this category), increased accuracy, increased
revenue, increased control, and better decision-making. The high-end systems have a long payback time –
almost four years compared with three years for mid-market and one for small business. In the other
categories for return on investment, small business systems scored consistently higher than mid-market
systems; and the mid-market did better than the high end. Again, this could have a lot to do with
expectations. Kudos once again to SYSPRO for high scores in improved customer service, accuracy, control and
decision-making.
HIGH END
|
System
|
Payback in years
|
Customer service
|
Accuracy
|
Revenue
|
Control
|
Decision-making
|
|
JD Edwards
|
5.3
|
2.4
|
2.4
|
2.0
|
2.5
|
2.8
|
|
Oracle
|
2.7
|
3.0
|
3.4
|
2.3
|
3.4
|
3.2
|
|
PeopleSoft
|
4.5
|
2.7
|
2.8
|
2.3
|
2.8
|
3.0
|
|
SAP
|
3.1
|
2.8
|
3.0
|
2.0
|
3.1
|
2.6
|
|
|
3.9
|
2.7
|
2.9
|
2.1
|
3.0
|
2.9
|
MID-MARKET
|
System
|
Payback in years
|
Customer service
|
Accuracy
|
Revenue
|
Control
|
Decision- making
|
|
ACCPAC Advantage
|
2.9
|
2.8
|
3.3
|
2.6
|
3.4
|
3.2
|
|
Great Plains
|
2.7
|
2.7
|
3.1
|
2.1
|
2.9
|
3.1
|
|
Navision
|
3.7
|
2.8
|
3.0
|
2.3
|
3.3
|
3.2
|
|
SYSPRO
|
2.4
|
3.5
|
3.6
|
2.8
|
3.5
|
3.5
|
|
|
2.9
|
2.9
|
3.2
|
2.5
|
3.3
|
3.2
|
SMALL BUSINESS
|
System
|
Payback in years
|
Customer service
|
Accuracy
|
Revenue
|
Control
|
Decision- making
|
|
Adagio
|
1.5
|
3.5
|
3.3
|
2.4
|
3.6
|
3.5
|
|
MYOB
|
0.5
|
2.5
|
3.0
|
2.5
|
3.3
|
3.6
|
|
QuickBooks
|
1.2
|
3.0
|
3.3
|
2.7
|
3.1
|
3.1
|
|
Simply Accounting
|
0.6
|
3.4
|
3.7
|
2.6
|
3.3
|
3.3
|
|
|
1.0
|
3.1
|
3.3
|
2.6
|
3.3
|
3.4
|
Costs
We asked respondents what percentage of the total cost of implementation they spent over the past
five years on licence, maintenance and external consulting fees, upgrade costs related to computer
infrastructure and internal costs. Our results show that licence fees as a percentage of total costs are the
lowest with high-end systems, followed by mid-market, then small business. The high-end and mid-market
customers are spending more on external consulting and internal costs.
|
System
|
High-end % costs
|
Mid-market % costs
|
Small business % costs
|
|
Licence fees
|
25
|
29
|
57
|
|
Maintenance fees
|
14
|
16
|
20
|
|
External consulting fees
|
17
|
16
|
4
|
|
Customization
|
8
|
13
|
4
|
|
Upgrade infrastructure costs
|
13
|
13
|
5
|
|
Internal costs
|
24
|
15
|
10
|
|
Total
|
100
|
100
|
100
|
Planned investments
Finally, we asked what accounting/ERP system investments were planned over the next two years –
replacing the existing system, upgrading to the next version, adding customer relationship management (CRM),
e-commerce, business intelligence (BI), budgeting and/or forecasting, consolidation, HR and supply chain
management. As expected, a few companies with high-end or mid-market systems are planning to replace their
systems, but many more will be upgrading. Replacing an ERP or accounting system is a last resort because of
the costs and effort involved. Many companies look to improve their business processes by other means,
including upgrading their software. It also looks like the mid-market is the place to be for vendors of
business solutions.
|
System
|
High end
|
Mid-market
|
Small business
|
|
|
Count
|
%
|
Count
|
%
|
Count
|
%
|
|
Number of responses
|
24
|
|
63
|
|
82
|
|
|
Replace system
|
3
|
13%
|
4
|
6%
|
10
|
12%
|
|
Upgrade version
|
16
|
67%
|
46
|
73%
|
53
|
65%
|
|
Add CRM
|
5
|
21%
|
14
|
22%
|
8
|
10%
|
|
Add eCommerce
|
3
|
13%
|
20
|
32%
|
13
|
16%
|
|
Add BI
|
5
|
21%
|
11
|
17%
|
1
|
1%
|
|
Add budgeting
|
6
|
25%
|
18
|
29%
|
13
|
16%
|
|
Add consolidation
|
3
|
13%
|
8
|
13%
|
3
|
4%
|
|
Add HR
|
1
|
4%
|
8
|
13%
|
9
|
11%
|
|
Add supply chain management
|
2
|
8%
|
8
|
13%
|
4
|
5%
|
Summing up
Congratulations to the following vendors for achieving the highest scores:
|
Category
|
Systems
|
|
Financial systems
|
SAP and Great Plains (Microsoft Dynamics GP)
|
|
Distribution systems
|
SYSPRO
|
|
Flexibility
|
Oracle, Navision (Microsoft Dynamics NAV) and SYSPRO
|
|
Stability
|
SAP and SYSPRO
|
|
Value
|
SYSPRO
|
|
Developer
|
SYSPRO
|
|
Implementation
|
SYSPRO
|
|
Return on investment
|
SYSPRO
|
We hope our survey provided some useful insights. We were able to provide a lot more information this year
because of the increased number of responses. Hopefully next year will be even better.
Michael Burns, MBA, CA, is president of 180 Systems (
http://www.180systems.com), which provides independent consulting service, including business process
review, business case development and system selection. Michael can be reached at 416-485-2200 or mburns@180systems.com.
|
|
|
