Share what you know with millions of people
Focus is the best place to turn what you know into remarkable content
0
Why has the user experience on ERP products historically been so bad?
Events
- Lead Nurturing 202: The Next Generation May 31 @ 11 am PT
- The Tricks to Paid Media June 6 @ 11 am PT
- Display Advertising for Brand Awareness June 20 @ 11 am PT
Related Activity
22 Answers
A poor user experience can be the result of decisions made even before the ERP evaluation or the implementation processes begin. For example:
1) Insufficient level of Executive support for project. Without proper Executive support, company buy-in and passion will be hard to obtain. In addition, there will probably be little to no accountability, thereby increasing the probability of failure.
2) The ERP project is considered an IT project, or a Finance project. In order for an ERP project to be successful, it needs to be a multi-functional project or in other words a company project. If all functions are not involved in the requirements document, evaluation and implementation then there is little chance that all functional needs will be met and the ERP solution capabilities will not be fully leveraged.
3) Inadequate due diligence by the company on critical non-functional related aspects of the ERP vendor that you can not obtain by attending demos. These include:
* Quality of the software in real life deployments
* Quality of the Customer Support organization
* Is the ERP vendor just a vendor or a business partner to your success
* Will the ERP solution scale to meet your growth forecasts
For those interested in a more detailed description and other elements to consider, please see my executive brief on ERP Due Diligence in Focus.com (http://www.focus.com/briefs/reference-checking-erp-selection/).
4) Not enough time or thought devoted to mapping out the best process for your company to use once Go-Live is triggered. If the process is not mapped correctly or inefficiently, this will lead to immediate issues as employees will be looking for work-arounds to get the job done or just become frustrated as the ERP solution will become a burden to accomplish their everyday tasks and responsibilities.
5) Inadequate training prior to go-live
All of any of the above can lead to a poor match between your business requirements and the selected ERP solution capabilities. By definition, this will lead to frustration by the user and a bad user experience.
From a post-go live perspective, the main issues that can lead to a bad user experience are:
1) Lack of a super user that can help others in the company; always nice to have one person that knows many of the tips and tricks as well as some of the lesser known capabilities of the ERP system.
2) Inadequate on-going training for users. Without on-going training, the company will most likely not be aware of all the new capabilities and technologies that are being delivered by the ERP company. In addition, when new employees are hired, if they are not properly trained, they will simply use the ERP solution, the same way and perhaps the less efficient way that the company has used for a long time.
3) Not enough dialogue with the ERP company so that the ERP company understands your particular situation and continuing changing requirements and operation pain points that you will encounter as your company grows. This is a two way street, as the company does need to reach out if the ERP company is not proactive enough to contact you and the ERP company culture needs to be one of business partnering as mentioned above.
ERP, by definition, involves software that cuts across multiple departments and information silos. That fact alone makes ERP difficult to implement and get right. Much of that difficulty has nothing to do with the software itself. The problems arise because many organizations have great difficulty getting people to communicate across the silos.
Give this situation, it's no wonder that many companies have trouble implementing ERP. However, can we really blame either the software vendor or the software because the customer does not run its own organization well?
From what I’ve seen and experienced, there’s plenty of blame to go around for these issues. Customer and vendors alike tend to approach ERP without the appropriate level of respect for the gravity of the undertaking.
I have yet to be involved with an enterprise software purchase where the vendor sales team didn’t try to oversell. Artfully speaking around gaps in product capabilities and downplaying the level of effort to produce customizations are par for the course.
On the other side of the table customers typically have only a vague idea of what they want and need. There’s a general unwillingness to put forth the time and effort required to refine and clarify their requirements, objectives, and goals. Further, there’s a general lack of efforts to make sure they’ve conveyed their objectives and expectations effectively. As a general rule, the more a company needs ERP, the harder they will likely be to work with. It’s the kind of investment that typically gets put off until it’s undeniable. By this point, the customer needs a full process re-engineering effort to accompany the ERP deployment.
On most other types of software deployments, this tug-of-war between client and vendor is expected and accepted. The end product may take a little longer, miss a few “nice-to-have” requirements, and cost a little more, but that’s just how these things work. Close enough is good enough. With ERP however, these niceties have an exponentially worse impact. In more and more cases they’re all together lethal.
In closing, if this is to change, customers need to be aware of the gravity of the undertaking. Ultimately, the customer is the one spending their money and they bear the bulk of responsibility to ensure they’re getting their money’s worth.
That said, on the vendor side, I personally believe sales team incentives need to be adjusted so that they have some skin in the game all the way through successful deployment. They also need to be trained in how to recognize disasters coming and be able to either persuade customers to increase their dedication and investment or walk away.
Steve,
I blame the customer only if they didn't do their due diligence before making the ERP selection decision. For example, if you need a nice family care and end up buying a seat convertible, do you blame the car manufacturer of the convertible? Or if you buy a TV that has terrible ratings and reviews, don't you think the buyer has some responsibility to check things out?
An ERP solution is a very important decision and the proper due diligence must be performed. I noticed that you didn't disagree with any of my points, so I assume you think they have validity,
I also point out that it is a two way street, if the ERP solution provider is not going to be your business partner, then your chances of having a great user experience will probably be diminished. As i try to point out, the only single source of the truth about the ERP experience is not from the ERP sales team nor the ERP executive team, but rather their customers. All a company has to do is ask their customers to see if what they think about the ERP solution.
I do agree with you that many companies will select the ERP solution from the sales team with which they have the greatest chemistry. Clearly, that is not a sound business decision. Just like buying a car, because you liked the sales person.
Michael - you are absolutely correct...ERP cuts across departments and information silos and a lack of communication can frustrate its implementation. I would go one step further and say that communication and change is a universal problem.
Therefore, unless the software vendor developed their solution for an alternate universe where everyone sings cum by ah all day long and nothing every changes, they are responsible. They chose an architecture that isn't responsive to the customers reality. They chose to make their software so complex as to impact multiple departments and information silos in a manner incongruent with the customers business. And worse,they fund a marketing message that promises something which they are inherently incapable of acheiving.
The customer is responsible for their decision to make any such investment...I agree...but after 20+ years of pain and suffering you'd think the ERP companies would step back and think...hmmmm....maybe we have the wrong tool...or perhaps we aren't solving the actual problems that the customer has in their business. I guess if the customer keeps buying the same problems year after year and investing in the maintenance contracts year after year...what else is the ERP company supposed to do? Tell them the truth? In that regard I think they are responsible for their own part in the charade.
Fair point but maybe such vertical solutions are not "ERP"? Enterprise Resource Planning? Not a phrase used in business today? Time this was confined to history books? The move is towards People in not System out driving any org? Business is not complex step by step action with very few generic task types that addresses all business logic which frankly never changes. "IT" has made business complex and long overdue for change as George Colony CEO of Forrester said “If we don’t get from IT to BT [Business Technology] we’re going to have more disasters like our present mortgage meltdown. Why? Because IT creates impenetrable systems that human beings can’t manage. BT is about human beings back in control.” ERP is certainly not Business Technology!
Having spent the best part of 2 decades with ERP Software companies, the answer is sadly obvious. User experience with traditional ERP apps is poor, because User Experience was never a factor in the design of the software. The focus originally was on functionality. Anyone who designed Software Evaluation Projects in the 90's or sat through the tedious two-day vendor selection sessions can attest to this. Both developers and customers were focused on "What" it did, not "How" it did it.
UX has become a factor in recent years, as ERP functionality has become a commodity, but by then it's case a putting the proverbial lipstick on a pig - looks better at first glance, but it's still a pig.
It takes a new application, designed with UX as a factor with equal weighting in the design process as functionality to really change this picture. At the light side of the ERP Spectrum we see this with QB OnLine.
What Salesforce.com did to CRM, a new vendor can do for ERP.
DvT
Great discussion, let me add my bit and share my experiences in my three years tenure as a user experience architect for an opensource ERP.
As an outsider without much relevant domain knowledge I was hired to redesign the GUI & important functionality of our product. Being a designer, I did what designers normally do and started out analyzing the existing product, looking at the competition, observing users and interviewing experts. And yes, as most of us already agreed, I also discovered that the UX of most ERP software is indeed very bad. My top 5 of reasons is:
(1) Most ERP systems are designed around early 90s database architecture. Due to its complexity it is very hard to roll things back.
(2) Whereas consumer products are typically designed by designers (think iPhone, Facebook, cars, online shops), ERPs (and business applications in general) were mostly designed by engineers. This is changing now but, because of (1), it is very hard for designers to undo the damage.
(3) Most ERP systems are sold by business people to other business people. Business people look at different criteria than an end user would and the person buying the software is not the same as the person using it.
(4) Most ERP systems are sold from a Powerpoint presentation. This leads to decision making based on the amount of features rather than usability, flexibility and openness. Sales people can use a lot of smoke and mirrors and by doing so, can easily over-promise.
(5) Users do not get the opportunity to test-drive the software before buying. So sales people can get away with selling unusable software. When the contract is signed the, the customer does not want to hear his own people complain as the choice of ERP cannot be undone easily. Unlike consumer applications or web sites, users of business software are forced to use it. They simply have no choice and their feedback is not heard.
Recently I wrote about my experiences in the redesign of an ERP system and how we applied user-centered design:
http://openbravouxlab.blogspot.com/2011/06/openbravo-3-design-process.html
Or (if you don´t feel like reading), here´s a 2 minute overview: http://youtu.be/OLaLQPbFEeQ
Unlike Bob, I won't blame the customer for making a bad buying decision. The size and complexity of these purchases are so overwhelming that it is virtually impossible for the customer to make a decision that doesn't have some degree of error/misunderstanding. Often the customer will migrate to the sales team with which they have the greatest chemistry.
The sheer size and reach of these systems makes the user experience difficult. The implementation of an ERP touches every corner of the business. Their effect can feel like the entire company has been transported into a completely different market, with different customers, products, competition, regulations, etc. And given that it happens over the course of time (i.e. one department gets there before the others)...it can be very upsetting to the users. Imagine a $10B company swapping out employees, markets, etc. You would expect problems.
Bob - buying a car or TV or an ERP is the responsibility of the consumer/customer....I agree. As you know customers buying an ERP perform extensive due diligence: RFI, RFP, Demonstrations, site visits, reference checks, etc. And yet, in spite of all of their due diligence the user experience is poor.
To use your reference to buying a car, even if I perform all of the due diligence in the world I would be less than happy to discover after purchasing the car that I can't drive it on certain roads, can't make left hand turns or u-turns, etc. To do that requires that I modify the engine, buy new tires and have a custom steering wheel and dashboard installed.
The ERP company that discloses all of these restrictions to their customer, explicitly, may win a round of applause for honesty - but no one would buy that vehicle. So instead the gray areas are allowed to exist. The gap between what a customer expects and what the system can actually do is left as a fuzzy area. No matter how honest the ERP vendor is there are certain assumptions that the customer is making about the "vehicle". I wouldn't think to ask about being able to make u-turns during a demo, RFI, RFP because it would seem obvious.
The customer that makes a buying decision in 2011 has enough examples of limited use, high maintenance costs and a steering wheel that doesn't turn in response to change: in that regard they are to blame. Shame on them for buying an ERP when what they need was agility, ease of use and innovation. Maybe they should look at Motorcycles instead.
Spot on Steve! There are so many better ways ERP is just yesterday's even the day before's product!
Steve and David, you continue to throw all ERP solutions under the bus as if they are one company.
If you are not happy with a Toyota, do you refuse to buy a different a car from a different manufacturer or do you do research and see what car manufacturer has the best quality, best customer care, fits my price budget, etc. All ERP solutions and ERP companies are not the same. There are different cultures, different verticals served, different tiers of complexity and every company is unique in their needs and their processes.
It's worthwhile taking a look at Workday and also SAP's new Sales OnDemand product. These products are SaaS-based and embody a very different paradigm for user interaction on enterprise systems.
“Why has the user experience on ERP products historically been so bad?”
The real question is, "WHY IS" the experience historically bad?
When nobody in the company "knows" what ERP is and how to get it implemented, it is an impossible task. In brief, "What were they thinking?" All in all, what is "sold" must be what they asked for and knew was intended. If a wholesale change was not expected and smatterings of the "old way" were going to hang around until doomsday was upon them.... In a LEAN and ERP cohabitation scenario, LEAN will identify, and ERP will enable. Part of an ERP deployment is knowledge transfer and bringing the "new culture" to fruit.
Disparity in cultures - systems thinking, enterprise language - APICS, and operational changeover - LEAN transition, responsibility - ownership, can make the experience smooth.
Above all, a properly defined well documented implementation methodology employment is key to a successful transition.
What is not desired is a forensic team to do an autopsy to discover cause of death. It gets real ugly.. Don't let the company be naive their about needs or their expectations. Be honest and fully disclose all aspects of the ERP project.
As far as I'm concerned this is a false question!
This may be because as a consultant, with over 20 years experience of installing ERP systems, that I don't see the user experience from the individual users viewpoint. Or may be I've been lucky! But NONE of the systems I have installed during those 20 yrs has been a failure as far as the business is concerned. For them it has been a success, for some a great success.
Individual users may perceive a system as a failure in their own little spheres - due to extra work, greater complexity, etc. But the business as a whole has gained significantly. Users do not tend to look beyond their own little silos of activity when assessing a system. Only directors and senior managers take that overall view - which of course is there job.
So, I for one do not agree with the overall assumption of the question.
Robert, I agree - the corporate value (ROI) is the basis for ERP, not user satisfaction. If we cound never get users out of their old-ways, business will fail..
What is beneficial is the dialog which ensues among the professionals in the trenches. Agree or disagree, talking about the "problems" is a healthy exchange.
My two cents...
So it gets down to either the “system” runs the business or people.....? I have now completed my paper on "ProcessHub" about supporting people who are any organisation’s best asset. So you know which side I am on! See http://bit.ly/pV8Nmn I refer to a booklet available at http://www.deming.org.uk/ "Managing Transformation" talking about Dr W Edwards Deming credited with turning around Japan after the war. Well the West is in that position Japan was in except it is a financial war that's been lost. We better start doing things better and 90s ERP does not help with its veneer of command and control that fools all. There are much better Business Technology tools that can control yet empower people and transform organisations to fight our way back to economic health.
Michael, you obviously have touched on a hot-button issue for many people. I'm not sure if your question is directed at the end-user experience or the company-level experience. Obviously, many companies have experienced difficulty in implementing systems and using them effectively. An ERP system is supposed to be part of a company's infrastructure that supports the transactions the company processes. An ERP system relies on integrated processes and effective controls - two things that many companies don't have. One of the most important issues for successful use of an ERP, as well as for any process, is 'accountability'. This is probably one of the greatest weakness for most companies. I'm sure you can imagine how well a new system would perform for the following company if they don't address this.
A manufacturing company was looking at getting a new ERP system. The CEO had heard horror stories from various customers and was concerned about implementation.
“What kinds of things go wrong during an implementation?” asked the CEO.
“Well, a major problem in many companies is that accountability is not well defined.”
“Oh, that’s not a problem here. We’re a very lean organization and everyone understands what they’re accountable for,” replied the CEO. “But, just out of interest, can you give me an example?”
“Well, although it might not apply here, companies that have problems with inventory often find that no one is responsible for inventory accuracy.”
“That’s not an issue for us. Dave, tell him who’s accountable for inventory accuracy,” said the CEO, nodding to his COO.
“No one,” replied the COO. “Maybe that’s why we have a $14 million inventory discrepancy.”
Thanks Ted now we are getting to the core issues as you say "An ERP system is supposed to be part of a company's infrastructure that supports the transactions the company processes" It is not a "business" system where people need support to create the information that may or may not require this "back office" capability. But if you want a stock control system then get one that ensures source information is accurate but is it ERP? No this term is well past it's sell by date. There are clearly some great tools (Rob and Steve mention theirs) out there that are both an alternative to this old ERP thinking but can also help if you have such a system in place. This http://bit.ly/pV8Nmn is "disruptive" thinking in action Agile Software where you know in weeks not years what the benefits are and empowering people to do their job knowing there is only one version of the truth that can feed your back office “processing” requirements.
You want to watch this video from Ray Wang:
http://openacct.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/ray-wang-why-enterprise-software-sucks/
(I think it also applies to ERP to a certain extent)
If it isn't the fault of the systems, and you can't blame the clients, maybe its a question of new and better approaches to implementation. That's my perspective.
Some companies are talking about 'gamification' to improve UX. What is everyone's opinion about this approach?
Here are a couple of articles describing SAP's focus on gamification:
1. http://gametuned.com/2011/05/sap-working-with-bunchball-and-badgeville-to-enr...
2. http://www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2011/03/04/the-gamification-of-sap/
Answer This Question