Accounting System/ERP Customer Survey By
Michael Burns published in the CAmagazine
April 2006 Welcome to the results of our second annual customer survey
of accounting and ERP systems. The survey was announced in the September 2005
print edition of CAmagazine, and can be viewed at http://www.camagazine.com/index.cfm/ci_id/27849/la_id/1.htm.
Once again. the idea was to see how well readers like the system theyre
using, and how they rate the developers and implementation partners. We also asked
for some general feedback about return on investment and future plans. Here in
this online article, youll find additional information including
charts that space constraints prevented us from running in the print version.
To ensure the validity of the results, we accepted only one survey per
organization and it had to be filled out by an accountant with a CA, CMA, or CGA
designation. This is a change from last year, when we allowed only CA designations.
We wanted to open up the survey to companies that dont have CAs on board.
We received 264 valid responses compared with 129 last year. The increase
may be due to the CMA and CGA responses. Also, vendors are beginning to recognize
the importance of this survey and have encouraged their customers to complete
it. In fact, some of the value-added resellers of accounting and ERP systems also
submitted responses. Naturally, we rejected these because of the resellers
bias. We also gave potential respondents an additional incentive this year
by holding a draw for free entry to The National IT Conference and Showcase for
Accountants, to be held June 12-13, 2006 in Toronto. The lucky winner was Karen
Kojima, manager of treasury & investment accounting at the Ontario Pension
Board. Congratulations, Karen! RESPONSES BY SYSTEM | System | Responses | %
of total | | ACCPAC
Advantage | 14 | 5.3% | | ACCPAC
Plus | 2 | 0.8% | | Adagio | 21 | 8.0% | | Avantage
Pro | 4 | 1.5% | | Custom | 3 | 1.1% | | Epicor | 4 | 1.5% | | Great
Plains | 15 | 5.7% | | JBA | 2 | 0.8% | | JD
Edwards | 5 | 1.9% | | Jonas | 4 | 1.5% | | Minotaur | 2 | 0.8% | | MYOB | 5 | 1.9% | | Navision | 6 | 2.3% | | Oracle | 5 | 1.9% | | PeopleSoft | 6 | 2.3% | | Platinum | 2 | 0.8% | | QuickBooks | 29 | 11.0% | | SAP | 8 | 3.0% | | Simply
Accounting | 28 | 10.6% | | SmartStream | 2 | 0.8% | | Solomon | 2 | 0.8% | | SYSPRO | 28 | 10.6% | | Syteline | 2 | 0.8% | | Traverse | 3 | 1.1% | | VADIM | 2 | 0.8% | | Visual
Manufacturing | 2 | 0.8% | | Other | 58 | 22.0% | |
Total | 264 | 100% |
As you can see, its a fragmented market, with the other category
(one-offs with only one survey response) accounting for 22% of the responses.
Dont be too quick to judge market share based on the number of responses,
because it seems some of the vendors were more successful than others in encouraging
their clients to complete the survey. That said, it wasnt surprising to
see a similarity in the number of responses for QuickBooks and Simply Accounting,
since these two systems dominate small business in Canada.
To compare the
systems, we split them into high end, mid-market and small business. And to improve
the statistical validity of our analysis below, we also excluded those with fewer
than five responses. At the high end, the battle is between SAP and Oracle. As
you may know, Oracle now owns JD Edwards and PeopleSoft. In the mid-market, the
big contenders are Sage (which purchased ACCPAC Advantage), Microsoft (which purchased
Great Plains and Navision) and SYSPRO. HIGH
END
| System |
Responses | % of total |
| JD Edwards |
5 | 21% |
| Oracle |
5 | 21% |
| PeopleSoft |
6 | 25% |
| SAP |
8 | 33% |
| Total |
24 | 100% | MID-MARKET
| System | Responses |
% of total | | ACCPAC
Advantage | 14 |
22% | | Great
Plains | 15 |
24% | | Navision |
6 | 10% |
| SYSPRO |
28 | 44% |
| Total |
63 | 100% | SMALL
BUSINESS
| System |
Responses | % of total |
| Adagio |
21 | 25% |
| MYOB |
5 | 6% |
| QuickBooks |
29 | 35% |
| Simply Accounting |
28 | 34% |
| Total |
83 | 100% | System
size The following chart will give you an idea of the size
and costs related to high-end, mid-market and small business systems.
| System | High-end |
Mid- market | Small business |
| Average licence fees | $4,000,000 |
$61,000 | $1,300 |
| Average number of simultaneous users | 575 |
16 | 3 | Overall
ranking We asked each respondent to score his or her system
overall for financial, distribution and manufacturing functionality. The possible
responses were excellent (4), good (3), fair (2), poor (1) and N/A. (We excluded
N/As from our statistics, along with products with fewer than five responses.
Note that this approach applies to all the remaining statistics.) We will give
credit to high-end and mid-market systems with high scores of 3.5 or greater.
We have not recognized high scores for small business because of a lack in comparability
to mid-market and high-end systems. Small business systems cost hundreds of dollars.
The average for mid-market systems in our survey was about $60,000 for licence
fees. High-end systems averaged in the millions of dollars. Naturally, the customers
of mid-market and high-end systems are going to want a lot more value for their
investments. Overall, respondents liked their financial
systems the most, followed by manufacturing and distribution. Looking at subtotals
by tier for financial and distribution systems, the high end, on average, did
not score as well as the lower tiers. This may seem strange, but is due to greater
expectations on the part of high-end organizations. SAP and Great
Plains (Microsoft Dynamics GP) garnered high scores (3.5 and up)
for financial systems, and SYSPRO did the same for distribution. HIGH
END
| System | Financial |
Distribution | Manufacturing |
| JD Edwards |
2.8 | 2.7 |
2.7 | | Oracle |
3.2 | N/A |
N/A | | PeopleSoft |
3.2 | 2.0 |
2.0 | | SAP |
3.5 | 2.8 |
3.0 | |
Average | 3.2 |
2.5 | 2.6 | MID-MARKET
| System | Financial |
Distribution | Manufacturing |
| ACCPAC Advantage |
3.4 | 3.0 |
2.2 | | Great
Plains | 3.5 |
2.9 | 2.6 |
| Navision |
3.2 | 3.0 |
3.0 | | SYSPRO |
3.4 | 3.5 |
3.3 | |
Average | 3.4 |
3.1 | 2.8 | SMALL
BUSINESS
| System |
Financial | Distribution |
Manufacturing | |
Adagio | 3.7 |
3.3 | 3.0 |
| MYOB |
3.8 | 2.5 |
1.5 | | QuickBooks |
3.2 | 2.7 |
2.1 | | Simply
Accounting | 3.4 |
2.8 | 2.4 |
| Average |
3.5 | 2.8 |
2.2 | Generic
attributes
In terms of ease of use, flexibility,
stability, security, documentation, reporting, customization and value for money,
the high-end systems didn’t measure up to mid-market and small business
systems, especially when it came to value for money. Notice
that small business systems have consistently higher scores than their mid-market
and high-end counterparts. This says a lot about the quality of these systems,
but also reflects lower expectations; on average, customers spent only a few hundred
dollars to acquire them. High scores for flexibility go to Oracle, Navision
(Microsoft Dynamics NAV) and SYSPRO, stability to SAP and SYSPRO,
and value to SYSPRO. We can’t help but
notice the high scores for MYOB for flexibility, customization and value. What’s
strange about this is that in 2001 Intuit Canada
acquired the Canadian operations of MYOB Canada. MYOB apparently decided to divest
the Canadian operations as part of a strategy to focus on markets and countries
where MYOB has more growth opportunities. The MYOB respondents are all working
with older releases of the software. One of our questions was the date of the
last upgrade and the average MYOB response was five years ago. HIGH
END
| System |
Ease of use | Flexible |
Stable | Secure |
Doc’n |
Rpt’g |
Cust’n |
Value | |
JD Edwards | 2.2 |
3.0 | 3.0 |
2.8 | 2.4 |
2.6 | 2.2 |
2.5 | | Oracle |
3.0 | 3.6 |
3.8 | 3.4 |
2.6 | 2.8 |
3.2 | 2.0 |
| PeopleSoft |
2.5 | 2.7 |
2.8 | 2.7 |
2.3 | 2.5 |
2.3 | 2.3 |
| SAP |
2.6 | 3.1 |
3.5 | 2.9 |
2.8 | 2.5 |
2.5 | 2.5 |
| Average |
2.6 | 3.1 |
3.3 | 2.9 |
2.5 | 2.6 |
2.6 | 2.3 | MID-MARKET
| System |
Ease of use | Flexible |
Stable | Secure |
Doc’n |
Rpt’g |
Cust’n |
Value | |
ACCPAC Advantage | 2.9 |
3.2 | 3.4 |
2.9 | 2.8 |
2.1 | 2.4 |
2.9 | | Great
Plains | 3.1 |
3.3 | 3.1 |
2.9 | 2.9 |
2.6 | 2.9 |
3.1 | | Navision |
3.2 | 3.5 |
3.2 | 2.2 |
2.3 | 3.2 |
3.2 | 3.0 |
| SYSPRO |
3.1 | 3.6 |
3.4 | 3.0 |
3.0 | 3.0 |
3.4 | 3.5 |
| Average |
3.1 | 3.4 |
3.3 | 2.7 |
2.8 | 2.7 |
3.0 | 3.1 | SMALL
BUSINESS
| System |
Ease of use | Flexible |
Stable | Secure |
Doc’n |
Rpt’g |
Cust’n |
Value | |
Adagio | 3.4 |
3.8 | 3.4 |
3.1 | 3.2 |
3.2 | 3.7 |
3.6 | | MYOB |
3.4 | 4.0 |
3.4 | 3.0 |
3.2 | 2.8 |
4.0 | 4.0 |
| QuickBooks |
3.2 | 3.5 |
3.0 | 2.8 |
3.0 | 2.7 |
3.3 | 3.3 |
| Simply Accounting |
2.9 | 3.3 |
3.3 | 3.2 |
2.9 | 2.3 |
3.4 | 3.6 |
| Average |
3.2 | 3.6 |
3.3 | 3.0 |
3.1 | 2.8 |
3.6 | 3.6 | Developer
ratings For overall satisfaction, continuous improvement,
documentation, support and upgrade reliability, most of the systems could use
some improvement, except for the small business developers. SYSPRO scored
well in the “continues to improve” category. HIGH
END
| System |
Overall | Continues
to improve | Documentation |
Support | Upgrade
reliability | | JD
Edwards | 2.8 |
2.6 | 2.6 |
3.0 | 2.5 |
| Oracle |
3.2 | 3.2 |
2.8 | 2.4 |
3.2 | | PeopleSoft |
2.2 | 2.0 |
1.5 | 1.8 |
2.0 | | SAP |
2.8 | 3.0 |
2.5 | 2.6 |
2.8 | |
Average | 2.7 |
2.7 | 2.4 |
2.5 | 2.6 | MID-MARKET
| System |
Overall | Continues
to improve | Documentation |
Support | Upgrade
reliability | | ACCPAC
Advantage | 2.8 |
2.6 | 2.5 |
2.5 | 3.0 |
| Great Plains |
3.0 | 3.1 |
2.9 | 2.9 |
3.0 | | Navision |
2.8 | 3.0 |
2.3 | 2.6 |
3.0 | | SYSPRO |
3.3 | 3.5 |
2.8 | 3.4 |
3.3 | |
Average | 3.0 |
3.0 | 2.7 |
2.8 | 3.1 | SMALL
BUSINESS
| System |
Overall | Continues
to improve | Documentation |
Support | Upgrade
reliability | | Adagio |
3.6 | 3.7 |
3.0 | 3.6 |
3.6 | | MYOB |
3.5 | 2.0 |
2.0 | 1.3 |
2.5 | | QuickBooks |
3.2 | 3.0 |
2.7 | 2.8 |
3.1 | | Simply
Accounting | 3.3 |
3.3 | 3.0 |
3.0 | 3.3 |
| Average |
3.4 | 3.0 |
2.7 | 2.7 |
3.1 | Implementer
ratings For overall satisfaction, adherence to schedule and budget, support,
product knowledge and ability to improve business processes, the implementation
partners for mid-market and small business systems came out ahead of their high-end
peers. This is ironic in that the implementation partners for high-end systems
are usually very handsomely paid and work for large consulting practices. That
said, the systems are more complex, so perhaps this explains the lower ratings.
Congratulations to the implementers of SYSPRO, which was the only system
that landed high scores in most of the implementer rankings. HIGH
END
| System |
Overall | On
time | On budget |
Support | Product
knowledge | Improve
processes | |
JD Edwards | 3.2 |
3.0 | 2.6 |
3.7 | 3.4 |
2.2 | | Oracle |
3.0 | 2.8 |
3.0 | 3.3 |
3.0 | 3.0 |
| PeopleSoft |
2.5 | 2.7 |
2.5 | 2.2 |
2.2 | 2.2 |
| SAP |
2.8 | 2.5 |
2.4 | 2.4 |
2.6 | 2.6 |
| Average |
2.9 | 2.7 |
2.6 | 2.9 |
2.8 | 2.5 | MID-MARKET
| System |
Overall | On
time | On budget |
Support | Product
knowledge | Improve
processes | | ACCPAC
Advantage | 2.6 |
2.5 | 2.6 |
2.4 | 2.6 |
2.3 | | Great
Plains | 3.2 |
3.1 | 2.8 |
3.1 | 3.0 |
2.9 | | Navision |
3.0 | 2.8 |
2.7 | 2.8 |
2.8 | 2.5 |
| SYSPRO |
3.7 | 3.7 |
3.6 | 3.6 |
3.7 | 3.4 |
| Average |
3.1 | 3.0 |
2.9 | 3.0 |
3.0 | 2.8 | SMALL
BUSINESS
| System |
Overall | On
time | On budget |
Support | Product
knowledge | Improve
processes | | Adagio |
3.6 | 3.5 |
3.3 | 3.6 |
3.4 | 3.4 |
| MYOB |
3.7 | 3.3 |
3.7 | 2.0 |
2.7 | 2.7 |
| QuickBooks |
3.1 | 3.1 |
3.3 | 3.1 |
3.0 | 3.1 |
| Simply Accounting |
3.3 | 3.3 |
3.3 | 3.1 |
3.3 | 2.9 |
| Average |
3.4 | 3.3 |
3.4 | 2.9 |
3.1 | 3.0 | Return
on investment We asked about payback (no. of years), improved customer
service (ranging from a high of 4 to a low of 1; these numbers apply to the rest
of the questions in this category), increased accuracy, increased revenue, increased
control, and better decision-making. The high-end systems have a long payback
time – almost four years compared with three years for mid-market and one
for small business. In the other categories for return on investment, small business
systems scored consistently higher than mid-market systems; and the mid-market
did better than the high end. Again, this could have a lot to do with expectations.
Kudos once again to SYSPRO for high scores in improved customer service, accuracy,
control and decision-making.
HIGH
END
| System |
Payback in years |
Customer service |
Accuracy | Revenue |
Control | Decision-making |
| JD Edwards |
5.3 | 2.4 |
2.4 | 2.0 |
2.5 | 2.8 |
| Oracle |
2.7 | 3.0 |
3.4 | 2.3 |
3.4 | 3.2 |
| PeopleSoft |
4.5 | 2.7 |
2.8 | 2.3 |
2.8 | 3.0 |
| SAP |
3.1 | 2.8 |
3.0 | 2.0 |
3.1 | 2.6 |
| Average |
3.9 | 2.7 |
2.9 | 2.1 |
3.0 | 2.9 | MID-MARKET
| System |
Payback in years |
Customer service |
Accuracy | Revenue |
Control | Decision-
making | |
ACCPAC Advantage | 2.9 |
2.8 | 3.3 |
2.6 | 3.4 |
3.2 | | Great
Plains | 2.7 |
2.7 | 3.1 |
2.1 | 2.9 |
3.1 | | Navision |
3.7 | 2.8 |
3.0 | 2.3 |
3.3 | 3.2 |
| SYSPRO |
2.4 | 3.5 |
3.6 | 2.8 |
3.5 | 3.5 |
| Average |
2.9 | 2.9 |
3.2 | 2.5 |
3.3 | 3.2 | SMALL
BUSINESS
| System |
Payback in years |
Customer service |
Accuracy | Revenue |
Control | Decision-
making | | Adagio |
1.5 | 3.5 |
3.3 | 2.4 |
3.6 | 3.5 |
| MYOB |
0.5 | 2.5 |
3.0 | 2.5 |
3.3 | 3.6 |
| QuickBooks |
1.2 | 3.0 |
3.3 | 2.7 |
3.1 | 3.1 |
| Simply Accounting |
0.6 | 3.4 |
3.7 | 2.6 |
3.3 | 3.3 |
| Average |
1.0 | 3.1 |
3.3 | 2.6 |
3.3 | 3.4 | Costs We
asked respondents what percentage of the total cost of implementation they spent
over the past five years on licence, maintenance and external consulting fees,
upgrade costs related to computer infrastructure and internal costs. Our results
show that licence fees as a percentage of total costs are the lowest with high-end
systems, followed by mid-market, then small business. The high-end and mid-market
customers are spending more on external consulting and internal costs.
| System | High-end %
costs | Mid-market % costs |
Small business % costs |
| Licence fees | 25 |
29 | 57 |
| Maintenance fees | 14 |
16 | 20 |
| External consulting fees | 17 |
16 | 4 |
| Customization | 8 |
13 | 4 |
| Upgrade infrastructure costs | 13 |
13 | 5 |
| Internal costs | 24 |
15 | 10 |
| Total | 100 |
100 | 100 | Planned
investments Finally, we asked what accounting/ERP system investments were
planned over the next two years – replacing the existing system, upgrading
to the next version, adding customer relationship management (CRM), e-commerce,
business intelligence (BI), budgeting and/or forecasting, consolidation, HR and
supply chain management. As expected, a few companies with high-end or mid-market
systems are planning to replace their systems, but many more will be upgrading.
Replacing an ERP or accounting system is a last resort because of the costs and
effort involved. Many companies look to improve their business processes by other
means, including upgrading their software. It also looks like the mid-market is
the place to be for vendors of business solutions.
| System |
High end |
Mid-market |
Small business | |
| Count |
% | Count |
% | Count |
% | | Number of
responses | 24 |
| 63 |
| 82 |
| | Replace system |
3 | 13% |
4 | 6% |
10 | 12% |
| Upgrade version |
16 | 67% |
46 | 73% |
53 | 65% |
| Add CRM |
5 | 21% |
14 | 22% |
8 | 10% |
| Add eCommerce |
3 | 13% |
20 | 32% |
13 | 16% |
| Add BI |
5 | 21% |
11 | 17% |
1 | 1% |
| Add budgeting |
6 | 25% |
18 | 29% |
13 | 16% |
| Add consolidation |
3 | 13% |
8 | 13% |
3 | 4% |
| Add HR |
1 | 4% |
8 | 13% |
9 | 11% |
| Add supply chain management |
2 | 8% |
8 | 13% |
4 | 5% | Summing
up Congratulations to the following vendors for achieving the highest scores:
| Category | Systems |
| Financial systems |
SAP and Great Plains (Microsoft Dynamics GP) |
| Distribution systems |
SYSPRO | | Flexibility |
Oracle, Navision (Microsoft Dynamics NAV) and SYSPRO | |
Stability | SAP and SYSPRO |
| Value | SYSPRO |
| Developer | SYSPRO |
| Implementation | SYSPRO |
| Return on investment |
SYSPRO | We hope our survey provided
some useful insights. We were able to provide a lot more information this year
because of the increased number of responses. Hopefully next year will be even
better. 2005 By Michael Burns published in
the CAmagazine
January 2005 (The CAmagazine article also contains charts) Welcome
to the results of our first-ever customer survey of accounting and ERP systems.
The idea was to see how well users like the their system, as well as their views
on the developers and implementation partners. We also asked for some general
feedback about return on investment and future plans. Here in this online article,
you'll find additional information - including charts - that we were unable to
run in the print version due to space constraints. To ensure the validity
of the results, we accepted only one survey per organization, and it had to be
filled out by a CA. We made this restriction because CAmagazine is for chartered
accountants, and we knew CAs wouldn't misrepresent the numbers (this would also
enhance the reliability of our results). Since our sample size is limited - a
total of 129 valid responses - we have reported our findings on totals for all
systems, subtotals by tier (high end, mid-market and low end) and given credit
only to systems that drew at least three respondents. What did we learn?
First and foremost, that it's a fragmented market. More than a quarter (26%) of
the surveys were one-offs; i.e., there was only one response for those systems.
Some of the systems mentioned do not even appear in our annual ERP and accounting
software survey. There are still many old legacy systems out there, which are
not usually not marketed but are somewhat supported. Customers keep the systems
because they generally work, although they are built with old technology and will
eventually be replaced. Overall, QuickBooks accounted for 16% of the responses,
followed by ACCPAC (9%), Simply Accounting (6%), PeopleSoft (6%), Great Plains
(5%), Navision (5%) and SAP (5%). Overall ranking We asked
each respondent to score their system overall for financial, distribution and
manufacturing functionality. The possible responses were Excellent (4), Good (3),
Fair (2), Poor (1), and N/A. (We excluded N/As from our statistics, along with
products with only one response. Note this approach applies to all the remaining
statistics.) Overall, respondents liked their financial systems the most, followed
by distribution and manufacturing systems. Looking at subtotals by tier for financial
and distribution systems, the high end, on average, did not score as well as the
lower tiers. This may seem strange, but could have something to do with high-end
organizations having greater expectations. But for manufacturing, the higher-end
systems chalked up better scores. The best marks for financial systems go to J.D.
Edwards (now part of PeopleSoft and called Enterprise One) and PeopleSoft.
Generic attributes We asked each respondent to rate their system
for ease of use, flexibility, stability, security, documentation, reporting, customization
and value for money. On average, the high-end systems didn't measure up to mid-market
and low-end systems when it comes to customization and value for money. The customization
response was not expected and again may be attributed to higher expectations.
The value for money is not surprising and is supported by our return on investment
results below. High scores for ease of use go to PeopleSoft, flexibility to SAP
and SYSPRO, stability to J.D. Edwards and SYSPRO, documentation to SYSPRO and
Acomba, and value for money to PeopleSoft. There were no high scores for security,
reporting and customization. Developer ratings We asked respondents
to rate the developer of their system on overall satisfaction, continuous improvement,
documentation, support and upgrade reliability. Most of the systems in all tiers
could use some improvement. Only PeopleSoft ranked high in overall satisfaction.
Implementer ratings We asked each respondent to rate the implementer
of their system on overall satisfaction, on time, on budget, support, product
knowledge and ability to improve business process. The implementation partners
for mid-market and low-end systems came out ahead of their high-end peers. This
is ironic in that the implementation partners for high-end systems are usually
very handsomely paid and work for large consulting practices. That said, the systems
are more complex, so perhaps this explains the lower ratings. SYSPRO was the only
system that landed high scores in most of the implementer rankings. Return
on investment This time we asked about payback (no. of years), improved customer
service (ranging from a high of 4 to a low of 1; these numbers apply to the rest
of the questions in this category), increased accuracy, increased revenue, increased
control, and better decision-making. The high-end systems have a long payback
time - almost five years compared to mid-market (2.6) and low-end (1.8) systems.
Scores for the various systems were fairly similar in other areas except decision-making;
here the high-end systems did not rate very well. This may seem strange, since
high-end companies often invest in tools such as business intelligence to improve
decision-making. But their decisions may also be more complex, which accounts
for the scoring. Fastest payback goes to QuickBooks and Simply Accounting. High
ratings for customer service go to PeopleSoft and SYSPRO, accuracy to PeopleSoft,
SAP, SYSPRO and Simply Accounting, increased revenue to SYSPRO, better control
to J.D. Edwards, SAP and Acomba. Costs We asked for the approximate
percentage of costs over the last past five years for licence, maintenance and
external consulting fees, upgrade costs related to computer infrastructure, and
internal costs represented as a percentage of the total cost of implementation
they represent, for the past five years.. Our results show that licence fees as
a percentage of total costs are the lowest with high-end systems, followed by
mid-market, then low-end systems. The high-end and mid-market customers are spending
more on external consulting and internal costs. Planned investments
Finally, we asked what accounting/ERP system investments were planned over the
next two years. We asked about replacing the existing system, upgrading to the
next version, adding customer relationship management (CRM), e-commerce, business
intelligence (BI), budgeting and/or forecasting and other functionality. A few
companies with high-end or mid-market systems are planning to replace their systems;
but a large percentage will be upgrading. It looks like many companies will be
investing in other functionality, budgeting, CRM and eCommerce. Business intelligence
is not attracting a lot of investment dollars, except at the high end. Post
mortem We had initially planned to provide more information for each individual
system, but the limited sample size precluded that approach. Next year we plan
to repeat this process, and hopefully will be able to share even more information
with you. |