Enterprise Technology Blog

After almost a year of postings here at Enterprise Technology, we are packing up our content and moving to a new home, FourthShift Edition Blog.  Like Enterprise Technology Blog, FourthShift Edition Blog will be filled with insights and analysis from subject matter experts inside and outside of SoftBrands, as well as other news and information that impacts manufacturers.

But this is more than a blog, it is a dynamic media page and the home of podcasts, press releases, customer videos,fact sheets, white papers, and all communications materials related to FourthShift Edition.

Our goal is to provide easy access to all the resources we have to offer.

Come for a visit and reset your bookmark to the FourthShift Edition Blog.

Here in Minnesota we use the phrase “heckuva deal” quite a bit. [Gas below $2/gallon? A heckuva deal.]

As a native Minnesotan, when I heard about the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, my immediate thought was that it was a heckuva deal for anyone who has been thinking about implementing new business software but was worried about the investment costs. As Key Equipment Finance explains on its website, under this act companies can claim an immediate, first-year depreciation of expense on business costs, such as software purchases, on your April ‘09 taxes. (Key has a great podcast on the topic as well.)

Now, this post isn’t meant to be a sales pitch, it’s supposed to spread the knowledge. I’m not sure if I was living under a rock until last week, but I hadn’t heard anything about this specific stimulus plan and when I put two and two together and realized how much a company could save (especially if they leased the software purchase), it seemed incredible I hadn’t heard more about it. The only caveat (because of course there has to be one!) is that this offer expires December 31st of this year. Even so, it’s certainly something to seriously consider if a software purchase has been on a list of company needs but been held back by the costs.

In case you didn’t believe me when I said in my last post that green manufacturing was gaining popularity, perhaps this article from Business Week Online will.

Although green initiatives might not be easily attained for all small manufacturers, it should, in my opinion, at least be entertained. Particularly in a dismal economy when growth markets are hard to find, the green movement has continued to gain traction. Van Jones, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, was quoted in the article as saying, “By aligning themselves with green industries, small companies in struggling sectors can build more sustainable businesses in the long term. There is a big opportunity to turn this breakdown in our financial and economic system into a real breakthrough.”

Time will tell how the green movement pans out, but it can’t hurt to at least look into the option and see what fits for you. Even if you don’t enter a green industry altogether, you could certainly see benefit from making environmentally-minded changes and improvements to your existing products and systems. You can attract new customers looking for greener products and retain existing customers with your proven devotion to improvement and responsibility. Seems like a win all around.

(As a note of introduction, Laura Monn will be joining Mark in contributing to the Enterprise Tech blog.)

Everyone is talking about going green. Or, at least they were until the financial markets took a nosedive. Ugly as that situation is, I think we should still be talking about going green. Why? Because going green makes green.

This article from Environmental Leader got me thinking about this topic. The article does a nice job of framing the present situation (‘In other words, green manufacturing – the creation of manufactured products with non-polluting, energy and natural resource efficient, economically sound processes and that are safe for employees, communities, and consumers – is now an encompassing, profound, board-level issue for manufacturers’) and laying out the necessary first steps (‘First, get a comprehensive view of carbon footprint drivers and then focus on the largest opportunity areas’).

Consumers are really starting to look at what they consume and a commitment to green could make or break their loyalty. If that argument doesn’t sway you, consider how much money you could save by making minor changes (like manufacturing energy-intensive products during off-peak hours which saves you money and makes the energy company more efficient).

The article talks succinctly about the issues that really affect manufacturers in their quest for going green, but what I’d really like is to hear more from you about what you are doing (or aren’t doing) and why.

InfoWorld strikes again with another list of 20 IT mistakes that must be avoided. Now I’m sure some of you will disagree with at least a few entries and, indeed, there is room to debate whether any one of them deserves top 20 billing. However, I think we will all be able to agree that each of the 20 deserves recognition at some level.

If you’d like to do a compare and contrast, InfoWorld pulled out the original top 20 from November 2004.

Put them side by side for a little fun - watch the pendulum swing on passwords.

On a personal note: I was hurt by number 20 from 2004, warning IT executives not to be taken in by marketing messages. Talk about hitting a guy where he lives.

SoftBrands and TBC International have joined forces to bring you Can O’ Worms: A Food Safety Web Seminar on Thursday, October 9Th. The live event was created to address the issues faced by food and beverage manufacturers, especially those who exist in the SME market. 

Register for Can O’ Worms here.

The free interactive forum will take a hard look at issues affecting food and beverage manufacturers, including:

• Food supply in a connected world
• Foreign imports of raw materials and finished goods
• U.S. exports of raw materials and finished goods
• Responses of affected countries and the impact of new legislation
• Responsibilities of producers, importers and consumers

To discuss the issues we’ve enlisted the help of two subject-matter experts:

• Dan Sechrist, COO for TBC International, has spent his career in the food and beverage industry. From global restaurants to manufacturers, Dan has experienced all sides of the industry. Dan will be sharing some of those experiences and what he learned.
• Jason Laskowski, Solution Engineer for SoftBrands, has managed several food and beverage ERP implementation projects.

Through their experiences, Dan and Jason have gained a rare understanding of the importance of people, processes and systems, especially in an industry where one misstep can mean financial ruin.

This is not a product-focused event, there will be no demonstrations.  The purpose of Can O’ Worms is to discuss the real issues faced by food and beverage manufacturers.

SoftBrands and TBC International look forward to your attendance.

Register for Can O’ Worms here.

Of the many, many unsolicited emails I received last week only one had a subject line compelling enough for me to take a chance on opening it: “SAP and Oracle: Who’s Ready for Small and Medium-Sized Businesses?”

Being that SoftBrands is a Gold Channel Partner of SAP which focuses on the SME space - as well as SME sites of SAP’s large enterprise customers - i was curious to read the research and see what conclusions were drawn.

The study was conducted by Nucleus Research and, much to my surprise, the findings were not very friendly to SAP. The final line in the conclusion states: [T]he data today shows Oracle has a clear lead over SAP in the SMB marketplace. 

Ouch!

Now, I’m not an expert on methodology, but one of the most important factors for achieving accurate results is sample size. Simply put, if your sample size is too small in proportion to the entire population (say 5 of 5000), the data cannot be considered reliable. 

Another factor is clearly defining the profile of those surveyed. Failing to put the research into the proper context will lead to questions about the conclusions drawn.

On both counts the Nucleus Research report falls woefully short.

Let’s start with sample size. Nucleus Research did in-depth interviews with 29 SAP customers and 27 Oracle customers. I don’t know how many customers Oracle has in the SME/SMB space, but SAP has thousands.  With sample sized this small the data is so volatile I can’t fathom how any reliable conclusions can be drawn on just 27 and 29 interviews. 

The second point goes to defining the population surveyed. In this case, the report says only that Oracle and SAP SMB customers were contacted. But it fails to define SMB.

What criteria were used to determine if a company is part of the SMB market-space; revenue, employee count, single site enterprise, a combination of these and others?  There is certainly no consensus on what characteristics constitute a SMB enterprise so a definition is certainly in order.

Another glaring omission is what the surveyed companies were running.  For the SAP customers, were they on All In One, Business One, R3.  What about Oracle with JD Edwards, PeopleSoft, Siebel. Two companies each with multiple products.

A small and poorly defined sample raises several questions about the conclusions drawn by Nucleus Research and dimishes the credibility of the report. 

In this case, two strikes and you’re out.

If we are to believe the daily media reports, the economy is either in a recession or perilously close to slipping into one. If this is the case, one has to wonder why ERP spending continues to rise. SearchSAP.com gives us part of the answer in this post.

Quoting Jim Shepherd, a vice president at of AMR Research, SearchSAP.com points to two primary drivers of growing EPR spending: SMB’s survival instincts and more companies becoming global. 

I entered the ERP space on January 17, 2000. At the time ERP publishers were coming off the high of the Y2K scare and the economy was moving into a recession. As I recall, IT spending was predicted to stay constant if not be slightly reduced. Contrast that with what AMR is saying now and I’m left wondering why spending expectations are different today under what appear to be similar economical circumstances. 

Shepherd mentioned two, I’ve offered four additional possibilities below:

1. Economic growth has slowed, but we have not entered a recession - regardless of how it “feels” - so companies are moving forward with their IT plans.

2. We have entered a recession, but companies are more sophisticated today and see IT as a strategic investment that offers a quantifiable return by streamlining processes and increasing efficiencies.

3. Many of the SMB’s who bought new systems during the gloom and doom talk preceeding January 1, 2000 have, eight years later, outgrown those systems and the hardware has become obsolete. 

4. The links in the supply chain are becoming increasingly connected. A SME supplier to a larger enterprise is no longer electronically autonomous. EDI, RFID, etc. have dramatically changed the way companies up and down the chain communicate and if you don’t keep up, you don’t stay in business.

So many factors can impact the economy - the November election, Russia and Georgia appear to be heading toward a fullscale war, terror attacks on US soil are always a possibility - that what was is called a study can more accurately be called a poll. A snapshot in time, based on current circumstances, that could turn 180 degrees in the next 24 hours.

It’ll be interesting to look back a year from now and see how accurate AMR’s proved to be. 

I saw this post at the insights Four51 blog the other day.  Like SoftBrands, Four51 has a software solution that integrates to SAP Business One.  But where SoftBrands focuses on manufacturing, Four51’s solution is specifically for the printing industry. I won’t speak to how good the product is, but if SAP has signed Four51 as a Software Solution Partner it meets some pretty high standards. 

This post isn’t an endorsement of Four51’s solution for SAP Business One.  I am, however intrigued by the circumstances they find themselves in.  I’m intrigued because we (SoftBrands) were in the same situation just a few years ago.

We launched our FourthShift Edition product in April of 2005 as a manufacturing extension for SAP Business One.  We’ve been in the manufacturing ERP business since 1984, but that didn’t matter much to the early prospects. In fact, most early prospects focused on one of two things. The first group couldn’t get past the fact that they were looking at a new, unproven manufacturing software.  The other look beyond the the product.  They focused on the fact that SAP had selected FourthShift Edition as a manufacturing extension and decided the upside of partnering with SAP was worth the risk. 

Today, just a few years after the launch of that product, SoftBrands is one of the highest revenue producing Software Solution Partners in the SAP ecosystems, we have a seat on the SAP Business One product development committee, we were recently announced as a partner in SAP’s new MegaChannel initiative, and we are implementing FourthShift Edition for SAP Business One in companies across the globe.  From stand-alone enterprises to subdisiaries of Fortune 500s SAP Business One and FourthShift Edtion are helping companies improve their operations. 

My bottom line is this: Sometimes a partnership is worth it, even if it comes with a little more risk than the alternatives.

There are hundreds of Microsoft Millionaire who’ll back me up on that.

It’s been too long since I’ve posted and have nothing to blame it on other than time, or lack thereof. 

This item from the IT Failures Blog at ZDNet came to me via Twitter.  Michael Krigsman, the IT Failures blog blogger, picked up the story from ZDNet’s Larry Dignan.  Larry is Editor in Chief of ZDNet and Editorial Director of ZDNet sister site TechRepublic and wrote a Wednesday post about the B&L shake up on his Between The Lines blog.

If one can re-tweet, I assume re-blogging is also acceptable so here goes.

The bottom line of the story is that B&L has decided to roll customer service under one person. Writes Larry Dignan: [Bausch & Lomb] named Alan Farnsworth, senior vice president of customer service and information technology and chief information officer.

Michael Krigsman looks at the positive side of such a move:

[B]y bringing together IT and customer service under one roof, Bausch & Lomb creates stronger connections between two critical information-related functions. Eliminating the boundaries creates tremendous opportunity for the company to bring strategic IT to bear on customer service. That’s got to be good for customers and therefore great for Bausch & Lomb.

Considering there are two sides to every coin, I’d like to turn this one over and look potential pitfalls.

I have no doubt that Customer Service gathers and stores more information than any single B&L department, if not all others combined.  Also, if SoftBrands is any gage, I’m convinced their CSRs spend more time in the CRM system than accounting in theirs, sales in theirs, etc.  None of this convinces me, however, that putting the Customer Service department under the direction of the CIO is a good idea…for any company.

Customer Service is just one of several functional areas requiring support from IT, its people and systems, but making it part of IT sends a message that the other departments do not rise to the same level of importance.  The truth is, there are competing interests and priorities that need to be managed and they are best managed by a neutral third party, not by someone who represents one of the competiting parties.  

Imagine sitting in a budget meeting with the CIO, discussing wish list of software and hardware you would like your team to have in the next fiscal year.  Then imagine having the Customer Service manage sitting next to you with her wish list.  How confident are you that your priorities would get a fair hearing.

I’m not suggesting intentional maliciousness or a conspiracy to keep you from getting what your team needs.  But, let’s face it, we are all human and we come with biases.  Ask yourself this: Two people ask you to loan them $5 each.  Both have legitimate reasons for needing the money.  One is a good friend, the other an acquaintance, but you have enough for just one. 

Which way do you lean?  Who gets the money?

The move by Bausch & Lomb to put Customer Service under the watch of the CIO is an interesting one and I hope it succeeds.  Not because I have a vested interest, but because I think it’s risky and I admire risk takers.

It is a move that deserves to be watched closely.