the erp in manufacturing benchmark report

The ERP in Manufacturing Benchmark Report

August 2006

— Sponsored by —

—


All print and ele

Executive Summary

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems and their MRP (Material Requirements Planning) predecessors have been around for almost three decades now. As a result, many aging implementations, based on outdated technology, are limiting the business process evolution necessary to any company who wants to thrive and grow amidst the pressures of globalization and increasingly demanding customers. Conversely manufac-turers demand more value from ERP implementations, not only as their systems age, but as enterprise applications proliferate, raising questions concerning upgrade, replacement, consolidation and rationalization.

Key Business Value Findings The chief ERP implementation challenges cited by respondents were associated with the alignment of business processes with software capabilities. Customization related chal-lenges arise where software has been adapted to fit the business. Business process redes-ign challenges arise where processes are adapted to the software. Companies struggle to balance the two amidst costs associated with upgrades and latent inte-gration costs where point solutions or custom applications have been used to fill the gaps in functionality.

Implications & Analysis As a result, enterprises are struggling to derive more and better business value from their ERP implementations. That often means driving the use of ERP deeper into their organizations or broader across more of the enterprise. It means exfunctionality and making decisions betwebreed” solutions. For this to be successful,standardized throughout and in many cases

Recommendations for Action Companies should evaluate current ERP imcomplish the following:

• Balance aligning business processessoftware capabilities to business probusiness to evolve

• Consolidation decisions must weighenterprise.

“In implementing enterprise applications many organizations neglect to assess the technology platform, only to discover-after the fact-that the hardware and networking infrastructure is insufficient to support the software.”

-Jim Moore, Business System Manager, R&M Energy Systems

ctronic rights are the property of AberdeenGroup © 2006. AberdeenGroup • i

tending the footprint beyond the core ERP en ERP vendors and pure play or “best of business processes must be streamlined and outdated technology just doesn’t cut it.

plementations to ensure they effectively ac-

to software capabilities against aligning cesses to maximize benefit and allow your

carefully the business value brought to the


All print and electronic rights are the property of AberdeenGroup © 2006. ii • AberdeenGroup

• Resist replacement strategies that simply duplicate business processes currently in place

• Don’t fall into the trap of believing an ERP implementation is ever completely done

• Increase collaboration between Information Technology (IT) and Line of Busi-ness staff in order to gain the most business value within time and budget con-straints.


All print and electronic rights are the property of AberdeenGroup © 2006. AberdeenGroup

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .............................................................................................. i

Key Business Value Findings ................................................................................ i

Implications & Analysis.......................................................................................... i

Recommendations for Action ................................................................................ i

Chapter One: Issue at Hand ................................................................................ 1

Chapter Two: Key Business Value Findings ......................................................... 5

Factors Affecting Upgrade decisions .................................................................... 6

Factors Affecting Replacement Strategies ........................................................... 8

Consolidation Strategies ...................................................................................... 9

Challenges and Responses ............................................................................... 11

Chapter Three: Implications & Analysis............................................................. 13

Measuring Success............................................................................................ 14

ERP Usage ........................................................................................................ 16

Beyond ERP....................................................................................................... 18

Software Selection Criteria................................................................................. 21

Chapter Four: Recommendations for Action ...................................................... 23

Consolidation Recommendations....................................................................... 23

Replacement Strategy Recommendations ......................................................... 24

Recommendations Concerning Rationalization of ERP Extensions ................... 24

Laggard Steps to Success ................................................................................. 25

Industry Average Steps to Success.................................................................... 25

Best in Class Next Steps.................................................................................... 26

Featured Sponsors............................................................................................. 27



Infor ............................................................................................................. 27 Lawson ........................................................................................................ 27 Plexus.......................................................................................................... 28 QAD............................................................................................................. 28 Softbrands ................................................................................................... 29

Sponsor Directory .............................................................................................. 30 Infor ............................................................................................................. 30 Lawson ........................................................................................................ 30 Plexus.......................................................................................................... 30 QAD Inc....................................................................................................... 30 Softbrands, Inc. ........................................................................................... 30

Author Profile ..................................................................................................... 31

Appendix A: Research Methodology .................................................................. 32

Appendix B: Related Aberdeen Research & Tools ............................................. 34

About AberdeenGroup ...................................................................................... 35 Our Mission ................................................................................................. 35 Our Approach .............................................................................................. 35 Our History of Integrity................................................................................. 35



Figures Figure 1: Age of ERP Implementations..................................................................................2Figure 2: How many ERP’s do you have across your enterprise? .........................................2Figure 3: Business Drivers impacting ERP strategies ............................................................4Figure 4: Planned actions within the next 12 months.............................................................5Figure 5: Current Release Status ............................................................................................6Figure 6: Reasons to delay upgrading ....................................................................................7Figure 7: Motivation behind replacement strategy.................................................................8Figure 8: Planning to Consolidate? ......................................................................................10Figure 9: Performance Improvements Achieved with ERP Implementations......................15Figure 10: Metrics Tied to Success ......................................................................................15Figure 11: Did you purchase this from your ERP vendor? ..................................................19Figure 12: How likely are you to purchase this from your ERP vendor? ............................19Figure 13: Software Selection Criteria .................................................................................21

Tables Table 1: ERP Implementation Challenges and Responses ...................................................11Table 2: Field Service Competitive Framework...................................................................13Table 3: ERP Module Adoption rates ...................................................................................17Table 4: Expected and Actual ROI (Return on Investment).................................................23Table 5: Competitive Framework .........................................................................................33


All print and electronic rights are the property of AberdeenGroup © 2006. AberdeenGroup • 1

Chapter One: Issue at Hand

Key T

akea

ways

• Aging implementations limit the business process evolution and provide a catalyst for change

• The proliferation of enterprise applications poses a question of consolidation and ra-tionalization

• Manufacturers demand more real business value from ERP

he evolution of ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) has been an interesting jour-ney. The consolidation of the enterprise applications market in general and the ERP vendor landscape in particular, is having a significant impact on the imple-mentation strategies and execution plans of manufacturers. In addition, continued

pressure on manufacturers to optimize resources, meet tighter delivery schedules, and improve overall responsiveness is driving change and forcing many companies to re-evaluate their ERP strategies.

ERP systems and their MRP (Material Requirements Plan-ning) predecessors have been around for a long time. Aber-deen found a wide range of maturity across ERP implemen-tations. A full 31% are more than 10 years old (see Figure 1). Ten years ago the breadth of functionality available from ERP solution providers was far different than it is today and the technology was worlds apart. Even less than 7 years ago, at the turn of century, amidst the Y2K (Year 2000) scramble, the solution landscape was far different than it is today and probably a healthy portion of those 34% with ERP imple-mentations that are 5-10 years old were selecting from a menu of options significantly reduced from today’s offer-ings. As a result, a wealth of home-grown and custom appli-cations have been developed and adopted over the years to fill gaps previously left by MRP and ERP solutions of days gone by. High levels of customization, combined with aging technologies presents a significant challenge to ERP strate-gies today.

Competitive Framework Key

The Aberdeen Competitive Framework defines enter-prises as falling into one of the three following levels of practices and performance:

Laggards (30%) —practices that are significantly behind the average of the industry

Industry norm (50%) —practices that represent the average or norm Best in class (20%) —practices that are the best currently being employed and significantly superior to the industry norm

T


All print and electronic rights are the property of AberdeenGroup © 2006. 2 • AberdeenGroup

Figure 1: Age of ERP Implementations

< 2 years, 9%

> 2 years but < 5 years18%

> 5 years but <10 years 33%

> 10 years but <15 years18%

> 15 years

13%

No ERP9% < 2 years, 9%

> 2 years but < 5 years18%

> 5 years but <10 years 33%

> 10 years but <15 years18%

> 15 years

13%

No ERP9%

Source: AberdeenGroup, August 2006

An MRP or ERP evaluation was once thought to be a strategic 5-8 year decision, yet the age of these implementations implies the longevity of these solutions far exceeds their anticipated life. A full 24% of respondents specified their ERP system replaced manual processes (not shown), indicating they still had the first ERP system ever implemented. Another 42% indicated their current ERP had replaced home-grown or custom developed applications, while only 34% identified their current implementation as a replacement of another ERP, confirming that many companies view ERP implementations like brain surgery. You don’t do it unless the patient is dying.

Figure 2: How many ERP’s do you have across your enterprise?

2%

2%

4%

6%

88%

2%

4%

10%

22%

58%

31%

9%

22

18%

20%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

>4

4

3

2

1

Large

Mid-size

Small

2%

2%

4%

6%

88%

2%

4%

10%

22%

58%

31%

9%

22

18%

20%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

>4

4

3

2

1

Large

Mid-size

Small

Source: AberdeenGroup, July 2006

As ERP implementations have been aging, they have also been proliferating. Aberdeen found 71% of large companies with two or more ERP packages implemented across the enterprise and 26% with four or more (see Figure 2). Aberdeen defines the threshold for



the upper echelon of large companies to be $1 billion in revenues and many of these companies have grown to be this size through merger and acquisition (M&A). This is spurring the need to examine the options of staying the course, with each acquired com-pany continuing with its installed applications, or consolidating applications to one or more “standards” across the enterprise – or choosing some combination of these two.

While small companies, those with revenues less than $50 million, generally operate with a single ERP package, it is certainly not uncommon to find a multi-ERP environment in mid-size manufacturers.

Of those companies with more than one ERP package installed across the enterprise, the most often cited factor as the cause for this proliferation is growth through merger and acquisition (40%). However, a close second was the result of enterprises leaving the ERP decision in the hands of autonomous or semi-autonomous divisions (39%). In fact, through the 1980’s and into the mid-1990’s, this was a fairly common occurrence across multi-national, multi-divisional companies. The enterprise applications landscape during this timeframe included “corporate” financial systems running on mainframes and MRP (Material Requirements Planning) systems running on mini-computers at individual plants. A further 20% of multi-ERP companies now have corporate standards in place governing the evaluation and acquisition of ERP software, but still have instances of other enterprise applications that have not been replaced with the standard.

But manufacturing is not the only industry seeing significant consolidation. Several years ago ERP companies fought hard for relative positioning on the “Top 50” list. In fact, at one point the list was expanded to the top 100 so more aspiring market leaders could get their share of the spotlight. Today we struggle to come up with 100 ERP solu-tion providers across the entire vendor land-scape. And Aberdeen would argue that the Top 50 has really shrunk to the Top 20.

Aberdeen has compared acquisition strategies of several ERP vendors, both large and small. Amidst a myriad of strategies, approaches and tactics, the net result is a rapidly consoli-dating market. This leaves the future of in-stalled products in question. While most ac-quiring companies will assure acquired cus-tomers of continued maintenance, level of continued product innovation will vary from product to product and company to company.

In addition to the aging and proliferation of ERP and its consolidating market, what business drivers are impacting the formulation of ERP strategies? By and far operational factors such as the standardization and acceleration of manufacturing processes, reduc-tion of costs and streamlining of processes lead the charge. No manufacturing company today is immune from the impact of globalization or the acceleration of change and these companies are looking for demonstrable business value from ERP. Almost a third of par-

PACE Key — For more detailed descrip-tion see Appendix A Aberdeen applies a methodology to benchmark research that evaluates the business pressures, actions, capabilities, and enablers (PACE) that indicate corporate behavior in specific business processes. These terms are defined as follows:

Pressures — external forces that impact an organization’s market position, competitive-ness, or business operations

Actions — the strategic approaches that an organization takes in response to industry pressures

Capabilities — the business process competencies required to execute corporate strategy

Enablers — the key functionality of technology solutions re-quired to support the organiza-tion’s enabling business prac-tices



ticipants view the need to improve customer service as a key driver as well. Growth, ei-ther organically or through mergers and acquisitions is viewed by fewer companies as a driving factor impacting ERP decisions.

Figure 3: Business Drivers impacting ERP strategies


9%

13%

14%

16%

23%

24%

32%

47%

54%

61%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Shorter product life cycles

Easier connection with external partners

Requirements to improve customer service

Standardization and acceleration of mfg processes

Pressure to reduce operating costs

All respondents

Streamline order fulfillment processes

Organic revenue growth

Revenue growth through M&A

Linking of global operations

Regulatory compliance requirements

9%

13%

14%

16%

23%

24%

32%

47%

54%

61%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Shorter product life cycles

Easier connection with external partners

Requirements to improve customer service

Standardization and acceleration of mfg processes

Pressure to reduce operating costs

All respondents

Streamline order fulfillment processes

Organic revenue growth

Revenue growth through M&A

Linking of global operations

Regulatory compliance requirements



Chapter Two: Key Business Value Findings

Key T

akea

ways

• Upgrade strategies are reflective of significant time and effort involved • Standardization of business processes and integration issues drive consolidation de-

cisions and replacement strategies • Aligning business processes with software capabilities versus aligning software ca-

pabilities with business processes must be balanced against the costs of customiza-tion and integration

iven the need to streamline and accelerate manufacturing processes today, manu-facturers are faced with many decisions. Do they upgrade to the latest release of their current software, replace it or none of the above? Intentions vary with the level of maturity of the ERP implementation. In the aggregate 40% anticipate

keeping current versions of existing implementations at status quo, but there is also sig-nificant activity planned (see Figure 4). A surprising 14% across all companies have a replacement strategy at selected locations and almost half (45%) plan to upgrade to the latest release. Given the population of legacy systems and old releases pervasive across the manufacturing industry, this signals far more activity and progress than we have seen in the recent past.

Figure 4: Planned actions within the next 12 months


Those who have recently implemented or re-implemented within the past 2 years are in no rush to upgrade, but the likelihood of upgrading rises steadily up until the 10 year

G

59%

46%

35%41%

33%29%

44%

54%

42% 41%

12% 10% 11%17%

26%

0

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

< 2

year

s

<2 &

<5

year

s

<5 &

<10

Yea

rs

<10

% <

15 y

ears

> 15

yea

rs

Continue on current release

Upgrade to latest releaseReplace ERP

59%

46%

35%41%

33%29%

44%

54%

42% 41%

12% 10% 11%17%

26%

0

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

< 2

year

s

<2 &

<5

year

s

<5 &

<10

Yea

rs

<10

% <

15 y

ears

> 15

yea

rs

Continue on current release

Upgrade to latest releaseReplace ERP



mark. At that point the upgrade process is likely to be more difficult and cost prohibitive and companies are more likely to replace ERP.

And of course, for those with multiple ERP packages there is the added question of whether or not to consolidate. Across our field of survey participants, 71% of those with multiple ERPs intend to consolidate.

Factors Affecting Upgrade decisions A large percentage (45%) of respondents indicated plans to upgrade to the latest release of their software within the next 12 months. However, a full 77% of respondents were not currently implemented on the latest release (Figure 5). While 14% intend to replace ERP at selected installations, this still leaves a large percentage intending to be one or more releases behind.

Figure 5: Current Release Status


Operating 1 release behind the most current is a planned strategy for many companies. Manufacturing companies are conservative in nature. Even those who are pioneers in their field tend not to be pioneers in Information Technology (IT) deployment. Unless the new release contains features that are absolutely critical to their immediate success, they are perfectly willing to let others be the first out of the gate.

In addition, over half (51%) indicated the functionality introduced in new releases did not warrant the effort to upgrade (Figure 6). For many companies (58%) the upgrade process is long and difficult, particularly if there is a significant level of customization. For many these are reasons enough to delay the upgrade process and skip one or more releases. These companies eventually play leap frog and catch up, but at any point in time, they are equally or more likely to not be at the latest release.

Implemented on latest release,

23%

1 release behind, 47%

2 release behind, 30%



Figure 6: Reasons to delay upgrading


In some cases there are also monetary considerations of additional software li-cense fees. While some ERP solution providers always allow maintenance paying customers to move to the most current release with no additional software license fee, this is not always the case. With the shift to a new architectural base, some ERP vendors have introduced additional or replacement license fees. Yet at some point the risks associated with not upgrading outweigh the costs. BAE Systems, a company that develops, delivers and supports advanced defense and aerospace systems in the air, on land, at sea and in space, manufactures mili-tary aircraft, such as Typhoon, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Hawk advanced jet trainer and Nimrod maritime reconnaissance air-craft. The company determined that a comprehensive upgrade to its heavily customized ERP system was required to improve overall efficiency. “Over time significant levels of data corruption had become apparent, primarily because we were running numerous customizations, which made it difficult to follow an up-grade path,” said Steve Haywood, head of business systems development Air Systems for BAE. BAE Systems worked closely with SSA Global (now part of Infor) and an inte-gration partner on the system upgrade, which included data migration and busi-

10%

10%

43%

45%

45%

51%

57%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Not interested in new features offered

Customizations make upgrading cost prohibitive

Current release satisfies our needs

Upgrade process is too long and hardwe eventually ”catch up”

Not enough new features to warrant efforts

All respondents

Uncertainty over the quality of new releases

Not on maintenance

10%

10%

43%

45%

45%

51%

57%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Not interested in new features offered

Customizations make upgrading cost prohibitive

Current release satisfies our needs

Upgrade process is too long and hardwe eventually ”catch up”

Not enough new features to warrant efforts

All respondents

Uncertainty over the quality of new releases

Not on maintenance

“Over time significant levels of data corrup-tion had become apparent, primarily be-cause we were running numerous customi-zations, which made it difficult to follow an upgrade path.”

-Steve Haywood, Head of Business Sys-tems Development, BAE Systems



ness process and software reengineering and testing. Now that they have bitten the bullet on upgrade they plan to take advantage of regular feature pack updates and keep to a maintenance schedule and migration path.

Factors Affecting Replacement Strategies

Figure 7: Motivation behind replacement strategy


Far and away the most common motivator in terms of ERP replacement strategies is the move towards ERP consolidation (Figure 7). Several other issues cited as reasons for replacement serve also to strengthen this impetus. Outdated technol-ogy alone might not provide sufficient incentive for such drastic measures, but when it causes integration issues and prevents companies from adapting to chang-ing business processes these factors combine to prompt action. Integration issues become much more prevalent as companies grow through mergers and acquisi-tions and correlate directly with the intended integration of the acquired company. Where mergers occur primarily for purposes of diversification and the acquired company remains relatively autonomous, there is less immediate need for integra-tion between systems. However, even in instances where product portfolios are being diversified, there may be significant opportunity to grow existing customer share. Unless customer bases are mutually exclusive, opportunities emerge to leverage relationships across business units or divisions in order to grow revenue synergistically. Ralco Industries is one company that decided on a replacement strategy - twice. Since 1970, Ralco has been serving its customers’ various metal stamping and assembly needs in the automotive and non-automotive industries. The company had purchased its original Manufacturing Resource Planning (MRP) system in 1988. In 1995 they purchased another software package for shipping and receiv-

All respondents

ERP endor not keeping pace

Outdated technology

Integration issues

Business is evolving

Require functionality not in latest release

Require functionality not in current releaseExtensive customization prevent upgrade

Unhappy with support from current vendor

ERP consolidation

13%

14%

18%

19%

34%

36%

37%

42%

62%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

All respondents

ERP endor not keeping pace

Outdated technology

Integration issues

Business is evolving

Require functionality not in latest release

Require functionality not in current releaseExtensive customization prevent upgrade

Unhappy with support from current vendor

ERP consolidation

13%

14%

18%

19%

34%

36%

37%

42%

62%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%



ing and later decided to go with the entire system in 1998. A conversion date was set and when the day arrived, they pushed the button and found key features not working as planned. They had a disaster on their hands. “After six months of intense effort to make the old system work, we had to back off, but we knew we needed something else,” notes System Manager Eric Reno. “The key questions were, what exactly did we need, and who could provide it?” Ralco CEO Tom Gitter and President Jim Piper had a vision of total systems inte-gration, not only throughout traditional ERP modules, but also with their shop floor. “We were looking for a system that could be accessed from anywhere in the world. We had a vision of what we wanted – a living control plan that would col-lect data, update it, and send it where it was needed. Our vision matched up with the vision of Rob Beatty, founder of Plexus Online,” according to Piper. Unlike most ERP software, Plexus Online is delivered in an on-demand, software as a service (SaaS) model. Ralco started its implementation with the Plexus Online Purchasing module. When their old MRP system crashed in January 2002, Ralco took the full plunge and hasn’t looked back since. They now subscribe to a full range of modules from Sales/Customer Relationship Management to Produc-tion and manufacturing management, as well as Communication, EDI and Secu-rity modules.

Consolidation Strategies Mid-size and Large companies are far more likely to face decisions around consolidation of ERPs. Seventy one percent of large companies and 41% of mid-size companies have more than one ERP across the enterprise (Figure 2). Of the entire survey population with multiple ERPs, 71% intend to consolidate, but intentions scale with the size of the com-pany as shown in Figure 8.

“We were looking for system that could be accessed from anywhere in the world. We had a vision of what we wanted-a living control plant that would collect data, update it, and send it where it was needed. Our vi-sion matched up with the vision of Rob Beatty, found of Plexus Online”

-Jim Piper, President, Ralco Industries



Figure 8: Planning to Consolidate?


However, consolidation strategies do not always involve consolidating to a single ERP. While 64% of those companies with consolidation strategies indicated they in-tended to consolidate to 1 ERP, 22% indi-cated the intention to consolidate to 2 and 5% plan to consolidate to 3 (not shown). In addition 9% indicated plans to consolidate to more than 3 ERPs but Aberdeen would contend this may not actually qualify as a true consolidation strategy.

As indicated in Chapter One, the primary cause for proliferation of ERPs is growth through mergers and acquisition. These grow-ing companies face the challenge of standardizing business processes across the enter-prise. FMC Technologies is one such company. It has grown to be a collection of rela-tively autonomous businesses, the largest of which is its Energy Production Systems business which provides solutions for customers engaged in petroleum exploration and production. This part of FMC Technologies has standardized on SAP. But this is only one part of FMC’s consolidation strategy. Other business units are smaller and the deci-sion for these was driven by the search for the least expensive package that served the needs of the business. Therefore, for FMC Technologies, the result was to consolidate within class of business. For these smaller business units, the target ERP is Infor’s Syte-line.

Goss International is another example of a company faced with the decision to consoli-date ERP or not. The company is a global leader in web offset printing solutions, with a complete product range of newspaper and commercial press systems, as well as mailroom and post press equipment to worldwide markets. Having grown through acquisition, at one point the company had accumulated a collection of ERPs including Baan (currently owned by Infor), SAP’s R3, Oracle and several highly customized legacy systems. Two

58%67%

84%

42%33%

16%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Small Mid-size Large

YesNo

Two years ago Goss International made the decision to consolidate and chose SAP as the single strategic platform. Not only has it chosen a single ERP platform, it maintains a single instance of software and a single database, forcing standardi-zation across all divisions using the soft-ware.



years ago the company made the decision to consolidate and chose SAP as the single strategic platform. Not only has it chosen a single ERP platform, but it also maintains a single instance of the software and a single data base, forcing standardization across all divisions using the software.

Challenges and Responses Standing in the way of optimized ERP implementations, according to survey respon-dents, is the alignment of software capabilities with business processes often producing customization related challenges (Table 1). These top 2 challenges are tightly coupled, but there can be a duality of cause and effect. The need to redesign business processes can result from the changing needs of the business, which may or may not result in the need for customization. But it can also result from the desire to reduce or minimize the level of customization.

In parallel to these top 2 challenges, are the 2 most common responses – either align the business process to the software, or align the software to the business process. These 2 approaches often co-exist in a company, and the proper balance between the 2 can be a challenging juggling act, particularly given the emphasis many companies are placing on the elimination of customization.

Table 1: ERP Implementation Challenges and Responses

Challenges % Selected Responses to Challenges % Selected

1. Customization Related Challenges 45% 1. Aligning business processes to software capabilities

54%

2. Redesigning Business Processes 41% 2. Aligning software capabilities to business processes

48%

3. Cost of upgrades/updates 34% 3. Eliminating customizations 43%

4. Training 33% 4. Deploying newer more modern applications

34%

5. Little flexibility in adapting to busi-ness processes

29% 5. Use external consultants 28%

6. High integration costs 26% 6. Move to standards based hub and spoke integration methodologies

22%

7. High maintenance costs 26%

7. Wrap existing applications with web services

20%

8. Lengthy or incomplete integrations 18% 8. Replace legacy applications with applications enabled by Service Ori-ented Architecture (SOA)

17%


Goss International is an example of a company that has mastered this balancing act. Be-cause it has chosen a single ERP platform, maintains a single instance of the software and a single data base, and sticks to plain vanilla software as much as possible, this forces standardization across all divisions and careful scrutiny before any change is made.



Goss has a formal review and roll-out process it applies to each project. The first step in the process is a business process review and a fit gap analysis, starting with the 10,000 foot view. The second step is the blue printing phase, which involves reviewing all iden-tified issues in detail. Where this process uncovers a better way of doing things, the com-pany considers changing the implementation template. Because Goss runs all divisions from a single instance, this must be a very careful consideration and a consensus deci-sion.

What is involved in changing the template? The answer is, “Unnatural acts,” according to Mike Masters, Director of Business Systems and Solutions. The Information Technology (IT) group under Bill Rogers, Vice President and Chief Information Officer, includes business analysts who might be assigned to a specific functional application area or as-signed as site mentors. When even a minor change is suggested, all site business analysts must agree that the change will either be beneficial to their site, or that it will have a neu-tral effect. Once the site analysts have approved the change, it goes to the steering com-mittee. All in all, change is very tightly controlled and must indeed produce a business benefit.



Chapter Three: Implications & Analysis

Key T

akea

ways

• Best-in-class ERP implementations have achieved significantly more business value and use more functionality

• The pendulum swings back to single vendor solutions • Functionality remains the top priority in ERP selection • The importance of Total Cost of Ownership is significantly more important for

smaller, resource constrained companies.

s shown in Table 2, survey respondents fell into one of three categories – Lag-gard, Industry Average, or Best in Class — based on their characteristics in four key categories: (1) process (what business value has been gained from the im-plementation of ERP); (2) organization (corporate focus/philosophy, level of

collaboration among stakeholders); (3) knowledge (visibility across manufacturing and the order-to-fulfillment process); and (4) technology (scope of ERP implementation and use of technology.)

In each of these categories, survey results show that the firms exhibiting best-in-class ERP characteristics also produce a more significant impact to top and bottom line results (Table 2).

Table 2: Field Service Competitive Framework

Laggards Industry Average Best in Class Process

• Business benefits not measured; success is measured on time to first “go live” mile-stone; commitment lags after first mile-stones are achieved.

• Business benefits are measured and some quantifiable gains have been achieved but significant addi-tional opportunities exist for further pay-back.

• Significant and quanti-fiable business bene-fits achieved from ERP implementation. Milestones achieved within reasonable timeframes; Upon completion of mile-stones, new objec-tives are defined.

Organization • IT drives ERP deci-

sions with little or no involvement or com-mitment from Line of Business.

• Both IT and Line of Business involved in ERP initiatives, but IT owns the projects.

• Both IT and Line of Business collaborate on ERP initiatives, with Line of Business owning the success of the project.

A



Laggards Industry Average Best in Class Knowledge • Limited visibility into

manufacturing opera-tions and the order-to-fulfillment process.

• Some visibility into manufacturing opera-tions and the order-to-fulfillment process.

• Real-time visibility into manufacturing opera-tions and the order-to-fulfillment process.

Technology • Less than the funda-

mental basics of ERP modules imple-mented, using less than 50% of function-ality in those modules implemented; ERP implementation based on older technology.

• Basic fundamental modules of ERP im-plemented, using more than 50% of functionality in those modules imple-mented. Beginning to wrap existing technol-ogy with web services and first steps taken towards upgrading technology infrastruc-ture.

• All fundamental basic modules of ERP im-plemented along with other specialty func-tions, employing more advanced technolo-gies such as event management and workflow technologies and using more than 70% of functionality in those modules im-plemented. Implemen-tations make use of advanced middleware and integration tech-nologies such as SOA.


Measuring Success Everyone has their favorite story about an ERP disaster, an implementation that has failed so miserably that the story bears repeating in the hope that new deployments can learn from past mistakes and avoid the same calamity. Yet, while failed implementations are easy to identify, what constitutes success? Generally speaking, a successful imple-mentation is one that met the original business objectives. Yet this definition can be nebulous, particularly if these business objectives are not well-defined up front. Were the objectives to reduce operating costs, streamline or automate manual processes, or connect with customers and suppliers? Is success measured in time or cost to implement? In many ways ERP is now viewed as a necessary infrastructure. This has been good news for ERP solution providers, but lets business executives off the hook in terms of defining the ob-jectives of the project up front.

Aberdeen asked survey respondents for improvements achieved for 5 representative key performance indicators. Best-in-class manufacturers excelled compared to both average performers and laggards (Figure 9).



Figure 9: Performance Improvements Achieved with ERP Implementations


Generally speaking our respondents had a hybrid approach to measuring success (Figure 10). Most individuals selected a combination of metrics that measured business value but combined these with some measurement of cost and time to gain those benefits.

Figure 10: Metrics Tied to Success


Because it is generally viewed as basic “plumbing,” potential benefits of ERP are often overlooked. Yet with proper attention to full integration and proper controls, best-in-class companies are able to achieve very impressive results. Ralco Industries is an example of a company that has measured and documented results from its ERP implementation. Several years ago Ralco’s inventory accuracy was only about 50% in spite of the fact the company was conducting physical inventories every month. They never knew if they had

11%

13%

24%

25%

27%

27%

30%

37%

44%

52%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Ability to meet compliance requirements

Length of time for full implementation

Cost of software and services

Streamline business processes

All respondents

Automation of manual processesVisibility it provides to my business

Length of time to initial “go live”

ROI

Process Cost Savings

Ability to connect with customers & suppliers 11%

13%

24%

25%

27%

27%

30%

37%

44%

52%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Ability to meet compliance requirements

Length of time for full implementation

Cost of software and services

Streamline business processes

All respondents

Automation of manual processesVisibility it provides to my business

Length of time to initial “go live”

ROI

Process Cost Savings

Ability to connect with customers & suppliers

28%

23%

26%

33%

32%

10%

8%

11%

15%

12%

13%

1%

4%

2%

1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Reduction in inventory costs

Reduction in manufacturingoperational costs

Reduction of administrativecosts

Improved complete and on-time shipments

Improved manufacturingschedule compliance

LaggardAverageBest in Class



the parts to build a setup and they had no consistency in their production. This resulted in lost time, inconsistent product quality, scrap and expedited shipments. President Jim Piper and CEO Tom Gitter had a vision of a totally integrated system, and they went through a grueling and exhaustive search that started with 40-50 ERP compa-nies, both large and small, a 6 page systems requirements document and a 15 page flow chart. Diligence paid off in terms of search-ing for the proper fit. Within a year of im-plementing Plexus Online they had reduced menting Plexus Online they had reduced inventory by 15%, employee training hours by 50%, scrap by 60% and premium freight by 20%. Today the company maintains a world class defect rate of 0.16 PPM (parts per million) and a customer rejection rate of zero. “We were looking for a two-year payback, but it only took just over a year,” says Ralco president Jim Piper. “We’ve significantly grown our business in a down economy, which says a lot…. We wanted to differentiate ourselves from our competition, and we’ve done it.”

ERP Usage There is a generally accepted view that ERP is grossly underutilized in most manufactur-ers today. Statistics get tossed around liberally estimating that most companies use only 20% of the features and functions available. Our survey sought to quantify these statistics by capturing which modules were used and the extent to which the functionality within those modules was utilized.

Aberdeen listed 24 generic modules of ERP, spanning all functional areas within a manu-facturer. Table 3 depicts the percentage of respondents using each of these modules.

“We were looking for a two year payback, but it only took just over a year. We’ve sig-nificantly grown our business in a down economy, which says a lot…We want to dif-ferentiate ourselves from our competition, and we’ve done it.”




Table 3: ERP Module Adoption rates

Technology Solution Area % Implemented

General Ledger 93%

Accounts Payable 93%

Accounts Receivable 92%

Fixed Assets 43%

MRP (Material Requirements Planning) 79%

DRP (Distribution Requirements Planning) 23%

MPS (Master Production Scheduling) 19%

Forecasting and Demand Planning 37%

Human Capital Management 49%

Order Management 80%

Project Management 17%

Shop Floor Control 56%

Purchasing 94%

Inventory Control 92%

After Market Service (e.g. Field Service/Depot Repair) 13%

Engineering Change Management 28%

Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) 6%

Supplier Collaboration/scheduling 14%

Event Management 5%

Workflow Technologies 18%

Sales and Marketing 42%

Product Configuration 20%

Payroll 24% Source: AberdeenGroup, August 2006

Aberdeen’s further analysis indicates that on average our participants use 10.51 ERP modules, which represents an un-weighted average of 43.8% of the full range of 24 ge-neric modules. Of course some ERP vendors do not offer this full breadth of functional-ity and some manufacturers do not require all modules. Project Management, Product Configuration and Distribution Requirements Planning are good examples of modules where 100% penetration should not be expected. However, if ERP is implemented and the General Ledger module is not being used, chances are General Ledger is being done either by a corporate system or a stand-alone “best of breed” application. For core func-tionality required by any business (those modules shown in bold letters) – core financial applications, purchasing, order management, inventory control and payroll – only the



smallest of companies are able to function without automating these functions to some extent. Each of these functions, with perhaps the exception of Payroll, which can easily be outsourced, represents an opportunity for application integration or rationalization.

Our survey then delved a bit deeper in quantifying the average use of ERP. Recognizing that the implementation of a module does not necessarily indicate full usage of its func-tionality, we asked what percentage of the functionality was used of those modules im-plemented. On average our respondents indicated they used about 63%. When we apply this percentage to our un-weighted average usage, we find participants use on average 27.6% of ERP functionality, higher than the generally accepted view, but still a rela-tively low level of use.

Beyond ERP In spite of the fact that the depth and breadth of ERP solutions has grown significantly over the past several years, there are still applications that definitely fall beyond the boundaries of a comprehensive ERP solution. The pendulum has swung back and forth over the years, with companies first leaning towards selecting best of breed point solu-tions over those offered by their ERP vendors, then swinging back as companies sought to rationalize vendors. As heterogeneous environments began to cause integration issues and finger pointing exercises, the philosophy of “one throat to choke” became popular. This pendulum has swung back and forth several times in the past 2 decades, and until recently it seemed to stabilize at the apex, right in the middle.

As new and replacement ERP sales waned after Y2K, ERP vendors began to look to their installed bases of customers for the majority of their revenue. And as they did, they looked to fill solution gaps, first by offering modules that competed against these pure play vendors. While these modules did not offer best of breed functionality, they were fully integrated and, for many companies, offered a solution that was “good enough.”

This strategy produced moderate results and some of these modules provided some dif-ferentiation across the ERP landscape, allowing entry into particular vertical markets. But these pure play vendors were still nipping at the heels of the ERP vendors with the prom-ise of “best of breed” functionality, and as Service Oriented Architectures (SOA) began to emerge with alternative integration strategies, the balance between integration and best of breed functionality shifted.

As a result, ERP vendors began to either acquire or develop best of breed extensions such as CRM, Supply Chain Planning and Execution, Electronic Data Management (EDM) and Product Lifecycle Management (PLM). Few ERP vendors have the internal resources to fully develop these strategic extensions, but the acquisition trail is hot, and as a result the pendulum is swinging widely in favor of purchasing many of these extensions from a single vendor, which means a purchase from an ERP vendor.

Figure 11 indicates a predominance of customers with extension solutions currently im-plemented purchased them from their ERP vendor. Figure 12 indicates few of those plan-ning to implement these extensions are unwilling to consider the purchase from their ERP vendor.



Figure 11: Did you purchase this from your ERP vendor?

63%

51%

59%

86%

64%

88%

90%

65%

51%

37%

49%

41%

14%

36%

12%

10%

35%

49%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CRM

Advance analytics

EDM/PLM/PDM

Supply Chain Planning

Transportation Management

Supply Chain execution

SRM

Quality Assurance

Business Intelligence

ERP vendorPure play vendor

63%

51%

59%

86%

64%

88%

90%

65%

51%

37%

49%

41%

14%

36%

12%

10%

35%

49%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CRM

Advance analytics

EDM/PLM/PDM


Transportation Management

Supply Chain execution

SRM

Quality Assurance


ERP vendorPure play vendor


Figure 12: How likely are you to purchase this from your ERP vendor?

38%

34%

30%

38%

44%

36%

44%

34%

32%

37%

37%

41%

28%

45%

32%

35%

41%

36%

37%

40%

24%

25%

41%

17%

24%

29%

15%

30%

31%

24%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Most likely to purchaseSomewhat likely topurchase

Not at all likely to purchase

SRM

Transportation Mgt

EDM/PLM/PDM

CRM

Quality Assurance

Advanced Analytics

Supply Chain Execution



Warehouse Management

38%

34%

30%

38%

44%

36%

44%

34%

32%

37%

37%

41%

28%

45%

32%

35%

41%

36%

37%

40%

24%

25%

41%

17%

24%

29%

15%

30%

31%

24%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Most likely to purchaseSomewhat likely topurchase

Not at all likely to purchase

SRM

Transportation Mgt

EDM/PLM/PDM

CRM

Quality Assurance

Advanced Analytics

Supply Chain Execution



Warehouse Management


Eaton Corporation was faced with a classic ERP versus “best of breed” decision when it diversified. Once known as a vehicle components supplier, it has now become a leader in the design, manufacture and distribution of a comprehensive line of high efficiency hy-



draulic systems and industrial components. Today its business is comprised of 4 distinct segments: electrical, fluid power, truck and automotive. With this broader focus, Eaton’s distribution facilities make a very large number of products, many of which must be available to customers on short notice. These distribution operations deal with diverse types of orders. Its largest customers may order thousands of an item at a time, picked in full cartons. Smaller customers often need hundreds of different items, picked and shipped in small quantities, with multiple items packed in the same carton.

These requirements typically stretch beyond the limits of inventory management and control modules within core ERP. When Eaton acquired a new facility, it came with its own ERP implementation linked to a sepa-rate warehouse management system (WMS) that had been highly customized. The link between the two systems was based on batch updates and multiple appli-cation interfaces.

To simplify and streamline operations, Eaton chose to replace the acquired ERP and customized WMS with its standard ERP. Eaton already had over 70 sites using QAD’s MFG/PRO. The company decided against replacing the WMS with a product from a pure play vendor, and instead chose QAD Advanced Inventory Management (QAD AIM). This decision was based on a centralized strategy and the tight integration of QAD MFG/PRO and QAD AIM.

According to Gaylord Seemann, Director FPG IT-Manufacturing Systems, “The transac-tional-level integration of QAD AIM with QAD MFG/PRO gives us the increased reli-ability and throughput we need as opposed to the independent third-party solutions we’ve had to integrate in the past. There are no middleware issues that cause a WMS to get out of sync with the core manufacturing system. It’s all one system.”

TOMASCO mulciber, Inc. is another company that made a decision to rationalize soft-ware vendors. A Japanese joint venture company for the Honda supplier system, in early 2002 TOMASCO found themselves with 14 different software products on 4 different platforms. When they were unable to secure ISO 9000 certification and had trouble meet-ing EDI requirements for Honda, they sought a different approach and selected Plexus Online, an integrated on-demand manufacturing performance system that also includes ERP.

In addition to traditional core ERP components TOMASCO implemented a shop floor data-collection system, along with traceability, quality management, EDI and Document Control. “We first started working towards our ISO certification in the mid-90s”, notes Assistant Manager QMS Deb Reining. “There was one issue after another. We were con-

“The transactional-level integration of QAD AIM with QAD MDG/PRO gives us the in-creased reliability and throughput we need as opposed to the independent third party solutions we’ve had to integrate in the past.”

-Gaylord Seemann, Director FGP IT Manu-facturing Systems, Eaton Corporation



vinced we needed to go to another system platform. With the Plexus Document Control module, approved process changes flow automatically. We now can have SPC (Statistical Process Control) on all the lines. We were actually meeting ISO procedure requirements without realizing it.”

TOMASCO continues to streamline its business systems as it progresses further along its ERP implementation.

Software Selection Criteria Given the level of planned activity by manufacturing companies, we sought to determine the criteria most often being used as selection criteria. These criteria varied little by per-formance (Best-in-class versus Industry Average and Laggards) but did vary rather sig-nificantly by size of company. Not surprisingly, feature functionality remains at the top of the list for any size company, in spite of the fact that many of the features of ERP have become relatively commoditized over the last several years. However for larger compa-nies, the software license is far less important than the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), even more so than in smaller companies. Smaller companies are more sensitive to ease of use than their larger counterparts and seem more reliant on outside professional services. Industry specific fit is also more of a concern to small and mid-size companies, a finding that is consistent with other Aberdeen studies.

Figure 13: Software Selection Criteria


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Thin client deployment

SOA Enablement

Referrals & References

Integration Technologies & capabilities

Software license price

Professional services capabilities

Industry specific capability

Ease of Use

Functionality

LargeMid-size

Small

Total Cost of Ownership

Ease & Speed of Implementation

Maintenance Options and Price

Software licensing options

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Thin client deployment

SOA Enablement

Referrals & References

Integration Technologies & capabilities

Software license price

Professional services capabilities

Industry specific capability

Ease of Use

Functionality

LargeMid-size

Small

Total Cost of Ownership

Ease & Speed of Implementation

Maintenance Options and Price

Software licensing options



Given the level of pain manufacturers are feeling in terms of integration and customiza-tion, it is both surprising and disappointing to discover that integration technology and Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) enablement seem to hardly be on the radar screen. These capabilities can play a very significant role in the evolution of any ERP implemen-tation and most every ERP vendor today has a published SOA strategy. Yet these seem to be largely ignored in the software selection process. Enterprises considering upgrades, replacement or consolidation would be well advised to consider these criteria more care-fully

R&M Energy Systems employed some very specific selection criteria in its search for a replacement for its non-integrated legacy systems. R&M Energy Systems is a leading manufacturer and supplier of equipment used in the oil exploration, discover and re-covery industry. In it various plants across the world, the company must support make-to-order, make-to-stock, engineer-to-order and assemble-to-order operations. Their goal was to find an ERP system to accommodate the company’s complex multimode produc-tion processes and some unique processes, without costly customization. So, like many companies evaluating ERP packages, functionality was high on the list of selection crite-ria, But in this particular case, they were looking for specific functionality to meet the needs of specific vertical industries and spe-cific customers.

Beyond functionality, the evaluation team also carefully examined the business and technical skills of each vendor’s implemen-tation team. It also assessed the technology platform. According to Jim Moore, Busi-ness System Manager and leader of the software selection team, “In implementing enterprise applications many organizations neglect to assess the technology platform, only to discover – after the fact – that the hardware and networking infrastructure is insufficient to support the software. That’s a mistake we were determined not to make.” Ultimately the company selected Movex from Intentia (now known as M3 from Lawson, since its acquisition in May 2006) and imple-mented it on a new IBM as/400. R&M’s goal was to implement a system that promoted simplicity, reliability, speed and affordability – common goals of not only mid-size com-panies like R&M but many replacement strategies and software selections today.

“In implementing enterprise applications many organizations neglect to assess the technology platform, only to discover-after the fact-that the hardware and networking infrastructure is insufficient to support the software.”

-Jim Moore, Business System Manager, R&M Energy Systems



Chapter Four: Recommendations for Action

Key T

akea

ways

• Balance aligning business processes to software capabilities against aligning soft-ware capabilities to business processes to maximize benefit and allow your business to evolve

• Consolidation decisions must weigh carefully the business value brought to the en-terprise.

• Resist replacement strategies that simply duplicate business processes currently in place

• Don’t fall into the trap of believing an ERP implementation is ever completely done

ost, revenue, profitability, and customer satisfaction benefits await all firms that are committed to optimizing their ERP implementations. But the expectations and achievements of best-in-class, average and laggard companies vary significantly.

Best-in-class companies are more aggressive in their expectations and therefore deliver better results faster (see Table 4).

Table 4: Expected and Actual ROI (Return on Investment)

ROIExpected Actual Expected Actual Expected Actual

<1 year 15% 16% 13% 12% 11% 6%<2 years 43% 35% 37% 27% 28% 20%<3 years 31% 26% 32% 25% 32% 27%>3 years 11% 24% 17% 37% 29% 47%

BIC Average Laggard


Some recommendations regarding consolidation, replacement and rationalization strate-gies will be relevant to all companies across our competitive framework.

Consolidation Recommendations Consolidation decisions must weigh carefully the business value brought to the enter-prise. Consolidation efforts have an enormous potential for saving time and money, but there is a price to pay in order to reach this goal. Ultimately those projects which have a dual purpose of reducing costs and standardizing business processes achieve the most success.

Where autonomous or semi-autonomous divisions are significantly different businesses within themselves, there will be less pay-back than in cases where business units make similar products, using similar manufacturing methodologies. In the case of FMC Tech-nologies, its Energy business is significantly different from its other business units, re-

C



sulting in the decision for SAP to co-exist with Syteline and potentially other applica-tions that were meeting the needs of the individual businesses. In Goss International’s example, businesses were similar enough, not only to use the same application, but a sin-gle instance of the application.

Replacement Strategy Recommendations Replacement strategies should be carefully planned around the standardization of busi-ness processes across the enterprise. Re-sist efforts to simply duplicate business processes currently in place or the result will be a painful “rip and replace” exer-cise that winds up exactly in the same spot you were in before, just operating on a different platform. In some cases, this process will require organizations to align business processes to the software, and in other, hopefully fewer cases, it will require software to be aligned with business processes. These decisions should take careful consideration to weigh the cost and benefit to the entire organization.

Recommendations Concerning Rationalization of ERP Extensions In considering rationalization of ERP extensions, every company should carefully review those stand-alone point solutions and home grown modules that once filled functionality gaps in older software releases. Much of this functionality is readily available today in core ERP modules. By eliminating these extensions and customized modules, integration efforts are also eliminated and the path to upgrades to new releases is cleared. The pay-back for this type of rationalization can be exponential.

In terms of future purchases of extensions to ERP, having “one throat to choke” or “one back to pat” has definite advantages. However, pay careful attention to integration and integration technologies. Just because your ERP vendor has acquired a best of breed ap-plication does not necessarily mean it has fully integrated it into the ERP application running at your site. Acquisitive ERP vendors are also just as likely to have acquired multiple ERP packages and may have no plans at all to integrate extensions to all their products, and will definitely be highly unlikely to integrate them to prior releases. The introduction of newer technologies, including Service Oriented Architectures (SOA), will make these integrations much easier, but usually will not be retrofitted. Staying current on your ERP vendor’s latest release will significantly enhance the likelihood of being able to leverage off-the-shelf functionality and integration.

Don’t fall into the trap of believing an ERP implementation is ever completely done. There will always be innovations technology advances to consider, and a healthy busi-ness is constantly evolving. Whether a company is trying to gradually move its ERP im-plementation from “Laggard” to “Industry Average,” or “Industry Average” to “Best in Class,” the following actions will help spur the necessary performance improvements:

“We were looking for system that could be accessed from anywhere in the world. We had a vision of what we wanted-a liv-ing control plant that would collect data, update it, and send it where it was needed. Our vision matched up with the vision of Rob Beatty, found of Plexus Online”




Laggard Steps to Success 1. Establish specific goals for obtaining business benefits from ERP

Many ERP implementations fall short of best-in-class status because perform-ance metrics are not established. In many cases ERP is viewed as a necessary in-frastructure and therefore companies place more emphasis on time to implement and cost than on specific business goals and objectives.

2. Expand your implementation to include all fundamental basics of your business.

ERP provides a solid foundation on which to run your business. Take advantage of its capabilities to automate manual processes and basic measure business per-formance. As milestones are completed, set timelines and objectives for next steps.

3. Measure performance against business goals

Strive to achieve greater visibility across your manufacturing operations, stream-line business processes in the order-to-fulfillment cycle, and make ERP your fi-nancial system of record. Measure operational costs and schedule compliance in-ternally and in shipments to customers. Measure the time to close your financial records, pay your vendors and collect accounts receivable.

4. Include both line of business and IT participation in project planning and im-plementation

Unless the basic needs of the business are addressed, your ERP implementation is at serious risk. Line of business participation is required to identify business needs and opportunities for improvement. IT involvement is necessary to identify the technology necessary to satisfy those needs within budgetary constraints.

Industry Average Steps to Success 1. Review current goals for obtaining business benefits; set the bar higher and seek

new opportunities

Don’t be satisfied with current results based on milestone achievement to date. Once the basics have been implemented look to implementing more functionality within currently implemented modules, and/or expand the implementation to in-clude new modules for added breadth.

2. Support all critical stakeholders’ visibility into current and accurate data

Broaden and deepen ERP’s reach across your organization with additional new users in order to provide visibility into financial, manufacturing and customer service operations.

3. Automate and synchronize as much of the order-to-fulfillment process as possi-ble.



Accurate and current business data must underpin the automation and synchroni-zation of manufacturing operations as well as customer-facing functions. If nec-essary, start with the low-hanging fruit and work to improve efficiencies with in-ventory reductions and schedule improvements

4. Eliminate paper- and spreadsheet-based processes, and consider Web, e-mail, and mobile technology solutions.

Outdated or lack of appropriate technology will breed error and inefficiency within a manufacturing organization. Once clear business and customer require-ments are in place, consider leveraging or expanding existing technology invest-ments.

Best in Class Next Steps 1. Standardize business processes

Predictability and repeatability are key to achieving even higher goals in terms of finance, manufacturing and supply chain operations, as well as customer service. Pay careful attention to the balance between aligning business processes to soft-ware capabilities and aligning software to current business processes. Software must support the basic business needs but extensive customizations can hinder a business from evolving.

2. Continue to take best advantage of emerging technologies

Now that your foundation has been laid in terms of advanced middleware and in-tegration technologies, take full advantage of these and other technologies to in-sure the business can run proactively and predictably.

In addition to improved efficiencies and increased customer satisfaction taking the above steps can directly impact a company’s overall costs, revenues, and profitability.



Featured Sponsors

Infor Infor delivers fully integrated enterprise solutions as well as best-in-class standalone products that address the essential challenges its customers face in areas such as enter-prise resource planning, supply chain planning and execution, customer and supplier rela-tionship management, asset management, product lifecycle management, financial man-agement, performance management and business intelligence. With more than 8,100 employees and offices in 100 countries, Infor provides enterprise solutions to more than 70,000 customers. For additional information, visit www.infor.com.

Lawson Lawson Software provides software and service solutions to 4,000 customers in manu-facturing, distribution, maintenance and service sector industries across 40 countries. Lawson's solutions include Enterprise Performance Management, Supply Chain Man-agement, Enterprise Resource Planning, Customer Relationship Management, Manufac-turing Resource Planning, Enterprise Asset Management and industry-tailored applica-tions. Lawson solutions assist customers in simplifying their businesses or organizations by helping them streamline processes, reduce costs and enhance business or operational performance. Lawson is headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., and has offices around the world. Visit Lawson online at www.lawson.com.



Plexus Plexus has been building manufacturing systems since 1989. Plexus Systems, LLC, was formed as an independent company in 1995. Since then we have developed a strong repu-tation for providing state-of-the-art manufacturing information systems to a variety of industries. Plexus Online is especially powerful in industries with rigorous traceability and quality requirements such as Automotive and Aerospace and Defense.

From bar coded inventory tracking and real-time traceability, to mobile computing and Internet-based communication systems, Plexus has always been on the forefront of inno-vation. Our Plexus Online software provides a powerful hybrid of standard and configur-able features on a cost-efficient platform.

QAD Leading manufacturers rely on QAD to help them achieve manufacturing excellence. Our entire organization is focused on delivering enterprise solutions expressly for manufac-turers, working hand-in-hand with industry experts — our customers — to help prioritize development efforts and provide elegant solutions to the most complex manufacturing challenges.

QAD solutions provide manufacturers agility to face challenges today while laying the groundwork for future success and lasting bottom-line results. Our allegiance to manu-facturers — now more than two decades strong — fuels our focus on the specific indus-tries we serve.

To better know and anticipate changing business needs, QAD works side-by-side with customers to solve their toughest challenges. Our passion for manufacturing excellence is the driving force behind our leading technology. You can see it — and feel it — in every-thing we do.



Softbrands SoftBrands, Inc. is a global leader in providing solutions for small to medium-sized busi-nesses in the manufacturing and hospitality industries worldwide. With more than 4,000 customers in over 60 countries now actively using its manufacturing and hospitality products, SoftBrands has established a global infrastructure for distribution, development and support of enterprise software. The company, headquartered in Minneapolis, Minne-sota, has more than 550 employees with branch offices in Europe, India, Asia, Australia and Africa. Additional information can be found at www.softbrands.com.

http://www.softbrands.com/



Sponsor Directory

Infor 13560 Morris Rd Suite 4100 Alpharetta, GA 30004 (866)-244-5479 URL : www.infor.com Lawson 380 St. Peter Street St. Paul, MN 55102 United States (651)-767-7000 URL: www.lawson.com

Plexus Plexus Systems 1731 Harmon Rd. Auburn Hills, MI 48326-1549 (248) 391-8001 URL:www.plex.com

QAD Inc 6450 Via Real Carpinteria, CA 93013 (805)-566-6000 URL:www.qad.com Softbrands, Inc. Two Meridian Crossings Suite 800 Minneapolis, MN 55423 (800)-586-7858 URL: www.softbrands.com

http://www.infor.com/

http://www.lawson.com/

www.plex.com

http://www.qad.com/

http://www.softbrands.com/



Author Profile

Cindy Jutras, Vice President and Service Director Manufacturing Research AberdeenGroup, Inc. Cindy Jutras is vice president of manufacturing research and service director for Aber-deenGroup. In this role Cindy oversees all research programs, products and services, re-lated to Manufacturing and ERP. Prior to joining AberdeenGroup, Cindy was a Senior Director at SSA Global and Vice President of Product Strategy for interBiz, a division of Computer Associates. She has also led manufacturing consulting groups and held a vari-ety of positions in software design and development, project and general management for manufacturing, consulting and software companies. Cindy is the author of the original supply chain concept, Virtually Vertical Manufacturing, as well as the book ERP Optimi-zation.



Appendix A: Research Methodology

During the month of July 2006, AberdeenGroup with Manufacturing Business Technol-ogy examined ERP strategies, usage and implementation of over 500 enterprises in aero-space and defense (A&D), automotive, high-tech, industrial products, Consumer Prod-ucts, Food and Beverage and other industries.

Responding manufacturing, supply chain, finance, sales and marketing and IT executives completed an online survey that included questions designed to determine the following:

• ROI expectations • How do companies of various sizes (small, mid-size, large) approach the

evaluation and implementation of ERP? • How important is industry specific functionality? • What constitutes “success?” • How is the consolidating market impacting the ERP versus Best of Breed de-

cision? • What is the tipping point for replacement or upgrade?

Aberdeen supplemented this online survey effort with telephone interviews with select survey respondents, gathering additional information. The full results of this study were published in the “Benchmarking ERP in Manufacturing” report. Further interviews were conducted for this report on consolidation strategies, experiences, and results.

The study aimed to identify emerging best practices for ERP and provide a framework by which readers could assess their own implementations.

Responding enterprises included the following:

• Job title/function: The research sample included respondents from the following functional areas: manufacturing (11%); business process management (8%), lo-gistics/supply chain (6%), IT (50%), sales & marketing (5%), finance (12%) and others. Job titles included managers (28%), directors (11%), C-level & VP (19%), CIO/IT Leaders (22%)

• Industry: The research sample included respondents predominantly from manu-facturing industries: Industrial machinery manufacturers (26%), metals and metal products (12%), automotive (19%), High Tech (8%), CPG/Food & Beverage (16%) and aerospace and defense (9%) manufacturers, medical devices (11%). Other sectors responding included construction/engineering, and retail and distri-bution, chemicals and pharmaceuticals.

• Geography: Study respondents were from North America (65%), Asia Pacific (14%), Europe (17%) South America (1%) and the Middle East and Africa (2%).

• Company size: About 9% of respondents were from large enterprises (annual revenues above US$1 billion); 51% were from mid-sized enterprises (annual



revenues between $50 million and $1 billion); and 40% of respondents were from small businesses (annual revenues of $50 million or less).

PACE and Competitive Framework How They Interact Aberdeen research indicates that companies that identify the most impactful pressures and take the most transformational and effective actions are most likely to achieve superior performance. The level of com-petitive performance that a company achieves is strongly determined by the PACE choices that they make and how well they execute.

Source: AberdeenGroup, Month 2006

Table 5: Competitive Framework

Competitive Framework Key

The Aberdeen Competitive Framework defines enterprises as falling into one of the three following levels of FIELD SERVICES practices and performance:

Laggards (30%) — ERP implementations that are significantly behind the average of the industry, and re-sult in below average performance

Industry norm (50%) — ERP implementations that represent the average or norm, and result in average industry performance.

Best in class (20%) — ERP implementations that are the best currently being employed and significantly superior to the industry norm, and result in the top industry performance.

Source: AberdeenGroup, Month 2006



Appendix B: Related Aberdeen Research & Tools

Related Aberdeen research that forms a companion or reference to this report include:

• The Proliferation of Enterprise Applications (July 2006)

• The Lean Benchmark Report (March 2006)

• Manufacturing Performance Management Benchmark Report (June 2006) Information on these and any other Aberdeen publications can be found at www.Aberdeen.com.

http://www.aberdeen.com/summary/report/benchmark/RA_Lean_JB_2845.asp

http://www.aberdeen.com/summary/report/benchmark/RA_MPM_CJ_3166.asp

http://www.aberdeen.com/



About AberdeenGroup

Our Mission To be the trusted advisor and business value research destination of choice for the Global Business Executive.

Our Approach Aberdeen delivers unbiased, primary research that helps enterprises derive tangible busi-ness value from technology-enabled solutions. Through continuous benchmarking and analysis of value chain practices, Aberdeen offers a unique mix of research, tools, and services to help Global Business Executives accomplish the following:

• IMPROVE the financial and competitive position of their business now

• PRIORITIZE operational improvement areas to drive immediate, tangible value to their business

• LEVERAGE information technology for tangible business value. Aberdeen also offers selected solution providers fact-based tools and services to em-power and equip them to accomplish the following:

• CREATE DEMAND, by reaching the right level of executives in companies where their solutions can deliver differentiated results

• ACCELERATE SALES, by accessing executive decision-makers who need a so-lution and arming the sales team with fact-based differentiation around business impact

• EXPAND CUSTOMERS, by fortifying their value proposition with independent fact-based research and demonstrating installed base proof points

Our History of Integrity Aberdeen was founded in 1988 to conduct fact-based, unbiased research that delivers tangible value to executives trying to advance their businesses with technology-enabled solutions.

Aberdeen's integrity has always been and always will be beyond reproach. We provide independent research and analysis of the dynamics underlying specific technology-enabled business strategies, market trends, and technology solutions. While some reports or portions of reports may be underwritten by corporate sponsors, Aberdeen's research findings are never influenced by any of these sponsors.

THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR ELECTRONIC DELIVERY ONLY

The following acts are strictly prohibited: • Reproduction for Sale • Transmittal via the Internet

Copyright © 2006 AberdeenGroup, Inc. Boston, Massachusetts

Terms and Conditions Upon receipt of this electronic report, it is understood that the user will and must fully comply with the terms of purchase as stipulated in the Purchase Agreement signed by the user or by an authorized representative of the user’s organization. Aberdeen has granted this client permission to post this report on its Web site. This publication is protected by United States copyright laws and international treaties. Unless otherwise noted in the Purchase Agreement, the entire contents of this publication are copyrighted by Aberdeen Group, Inc., and may not be reproduced, stored in another retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written consent of the publisher. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this publication, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent necessary to protect the rights of the publisher. The trademarks and registered trademarks of the corporations mentioned in this publication are the property of their respective holders. All information contained in this report is current as of publication date. Information contained in this publication has been obtained from sources Aberdeen believes to be reliable, but is not warranted by the publisher. Opinions reflect judgment at the time of publication and are subject to change without notice. Usage Tips Report viewing in this PDF format offers several benefits:

• Table of Contents: A dynamic Table of Contents (TOC) helps you navigate through the report. Simply select “Show Bookmarks” from the “Windows” menu, or click on the bookmark icon (fourth icon from the left on the standard toolbar) to access this feature. The TOC is both expandable and collapsible; simply click on the plus sign to the left of the chapter titles listed in the TOC. This feature enables you to change your view of the TOC, depending on whether you would rather see an overview of the report or focus on any given chapter in greater depth.

• Scroll Bar: Another online navigation feature can be accessed from the scroll bar to the right of your document window. By dragging the scroll bar, you can easily navigate through the entire document page by page. If you continue to press the mouse button while dragging the scroll bar, Acrobat Reader will list each page number as you scroll. This feature is helpful if you are searching for a specific page reference.

• Text-Based Searching: The PDF format also offers online text-based searching capabilities. This can be a great asset if you are searching for references to a specific type of technology or any other elements within the report.

• Reader Guide: To further explore the benefits of the PDF file format, please consult the Reader Guide available from the Help menu.

AberdeenGroup, Inc. 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1700 Boston, Massachusetts 02110-3112 USA

Telephone: 617 723 7890 Fax: 617 723 7897 www.aberdeen.com

© 2006 AberdeenGroup, Inc. All rights reserved Month 2006

Founded in 1988, AberdeenGroup is the technology- driven research destination of choice for the global business executive. AberdeenGroup has over 100,000 research members in over 36 countries around the world that both participate in and direct the most comprehen-sive technology-driven value chain research in the market. Through its continued fact-based research, benchmarking, and actionable analysis, AberdeenGroup offers global business and technology executives a unique mix of actionable research, KPIs, tools, and services.

The information contained in this publication has been obtained from sources Aberdeen believes to be reliable, but is not guaranteed by Aberdeen. Aberdeen publications reflect the analyst’s judgment at the time and are subject to change without notice. The trademarks and registered trademarks of the corporations mentioned in this publication are the property of their respective holders.

the erp in manufacturing benchmark report

Documents