1. |
Compare SAP (mySAP.com) side-by-side with BAAN, SAP, J.D. EDWARDS, EPICOR, ORACLE, QAD, and 80+ other ERP vendors
Mar 18, 2010
Today's usage of Decision Support Systems (DSS), combined with vetted ERP knowledge bases, allows organizations to save time and money, achieving better and more reliable/fully-documented decisions, a quantum improvement over the widely-used subjective process of selecting complex enterprise software...
|
| 2. |
EAM Showdown! IFS vs. Mincom vs. CHAMPS ( Pages)
by Sadat Zaman
Apr 27, 2007
Abstract : Using our EAM Evaluation Center, we compared Mincom Ellipse, CHAMPS, and IFS head-on. For the overall rankings, we looked at the vendors in two basic configurations: with back-office (HR and financials) functionality, for a total of eight main modules, and without, for a total of six main modules. To eliminate any chance of bias, and to ensure a level playing field, all 3,146 criteria comprising the modules and submodules in the EAM request for information (RFI) were given equal weight and priority.
|
| 3. |
The Power of One ( Pages)
by Brion Schweers
Aug 27, 2003
Abstract : The typical mid-market company that has roughly $350 million in annual revenue, has not fully automated its business processes, and would gladly give up its legacy systems if everything could work from one server, and give the executives the information they need in the process. Another opinion in the dilemma - the one-stop shop versus best-of breed concept.
|
| 4. |
Has The BI Market Consolidation Been Crystal-Clearly Actuated? Part Three: Competition and User Recommendations. ( Pages)
by P.J. Jakovljevic
Aug 19, 2003
Abstract : Users choosing point planning or BI products should consider the integration infrastructure and effort needed to combine these products versus the cost and functionality issues of choosing an integrated CPM product suite (if still possible to find). Mission-critical issues like scalability, reliability, manageability and ease-of-use go without saying.
|
| 5. |
While Oracle and PeopleSoft Are to Fuse, Competitors Ruse--Leaving Customers (Somewhat) Bemused ( Pages)
by Olin Thompson and P.J. Jakovljevic
May 20, 2005
Abstract : The recent merger of Oracle and PeopleSoft requires, among many other things, finding a perfect balance between cultivating the install base versus the zeal for snagging brand new customers.
|
| 6. |
War Looms in the On-demand CRM Market (and Beyond)—But Will You Profit from It? (0 Pages)
by P.J. Jakovljevic and David Clark
Oct 13, 2008
Abstract : Salesforce.com is now an almost unstoppable force in the world of on-demand customer relationship management. However, it may be the architect of its own downfall—and Microsoft is poised to take advantage. But will you profit from the Salesforce.com-versus-Microsoft war?
|
| 7. |
IFS Continues Its Reinvention Through Pruning Part One: Event Summary ( Pages)
by P.J. Jakovljevic
Feb 7, 2005
Abstract : Is selling-off of its Brazilian subsidiary and of tangential CAD and payroll applications a sign that IFS is grasping the realities of a mature enterprise applications market, which requires, among many other things, finding a perfect balance between cultivating the install base versus the zeal for hitching brand new customers?
|
| 8. |
Enterprise Resource Planning Vendors Address Lean Manufacturing ( Pages)
by P.J. Jakovljevic
Feb 20, 2006
Abstract : Intentia, Fujitsu Glovia, QAD, and SSA Global's solutions supporting lean manufacturing are examined. Which areas the extended enterprise resource planning (ERP) vendors excel in depends on their original ERP system's suitability for repetitive versus to-order environments.
|
| 9. |
Understand J2EE and .NET Environments Before You Choose ( Pages)
by P.J. Jakovljevic
Dec 8, 2004
Abstract : The Microsoft .NET versus J2EE platform argument often takes on the vehemence of a religious debate. Choosing one may amount to
|
| 10. |
Symix Maintains Consistent Profitability Despite Y2K Market Conditions ( Pages)
by P.J. Jakovljevic
Oct 27, 1999
Abstract : On October 21, Symix Systems, Inc. announced financial results for the first quarter ended September 30, 1999. Total revenue increased 19 percent to $32.1 million, compared with $26.9 million for the same period in the prior year. The Company reported net income of $895,000, or $0.12 per share (diluted), versus $857,000, or $0.12 per share (diluted), for the same period last year.
|
CART 
