Multi-stage Implementation?

Yahoo Archive
1
Thanks to all for the advice, you have been very helpful. I think we
will plan on pushing back the cutover until we are ready to move
forward with both accounting & manufacturing, so that costing remains
straightforward and to avoid "unlinked data" and untidy account entries.

John Garner - Ken Garner Manufacturing, Inc.

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Wonsil" <mark_wonsil@...> wrote:
>
> > Last year we implemented from legacy systems (a lightweight MRP
system and
> > a low end financial system) to 8.03.403. Any conversion is a daunting
> > task, so we considered implementing a module at a time. The problem is
> > there is so much integration between modules that you end up with
a bunch
> > of unlinked data. While it can be done, and we had a plan to do
it, Epicor
> > and most folks on this exchange recommended an all at once
implementation.
> > That was the course we ultimately chose, and I am pleased we did.
We had
> > one weekend of pain (I had to miss my favorite team's football
game on TV
> > which was a major loss for me), but then it was mostly done. I
think I got
> > good advice, primarily because of the data integration issues.
>
> I completely agree with Thom. You'll really have a difficult time
"cleaning
> up" the messes that would have been avoided had you went the whole
route at
> once.
>
> What you may want to consider is doing a separate financial
implementation
> in a test environment to get the accountants up to the same level as the
> rest of the company. We did a "Progressive Implementation" in a test
> environment where we started with an empty database and backed it up. We
> added the account numbers and the financial reports - then backed it
up. We
> kept adding elements and if we made an irrecoverable error, we would
restore
> the database to the previous step. It worked well in the early
stages but
> can get hairy as more folks are in there. However, your financials are
> common to all areas and I would make sure that works before floating
out the
> rest of your business.
>
> Mark W.
>
2
Has anyone implemented the manufacturing aspects of Vista/Vantage in
one stage and the accounting in another? I would be very interested
to hear about what problems that could create and what areas may
require special attention in these circumstances. We are beginning an
upgrade from 4.41 to 8.03.407, and have not been using 4.41 for
accounting at all. We are approaching the upgrade more as a fresh
implementation for several reasons including the limited usage of 4.41
currently. Any input you can give is much appreciated.

Thanks,

John Garner
Ken Garner Manufacturing
3
Last year we implemented from legacy systems (a lightweight MRP system and a low end financial system) to 8.03.403. Any conversion is a daunting task, so we considered implementing a module at a time. The problem is there is so much integration between modules that you end up with a bunch of unlinked data. While it can be done, and we had a plan to do it, Epicor and most folks on this exchange recommended an all at once implementation. That was the course we ultimately chose, and I am pleased we did. We had one weekend of pain (I had to miss my favorite team's football game on TV which was a major loss for me), but then it was mostly done. I think I got good advice, primarily because of the data integration issues.

Thom Rose
Controller
Electric Mirror LLC
HOTEL LUXURY

"The World Leader in Back-lit Mirrors & Mirror TV Technology"

T 425 776-4946
F 425 491-8200
A 11831 Beverly Park Rd, Bldg D, Everett, WA 98204 USA
www.electricmirror.com<http://www.electricmirror.com>

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of riverdive76
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 11:00 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Multi-stage Implementation?


Has anyone implemented the manufacturing aspects of Vista/Vantage in
one stage and the accounting in another? I would be very interested
to hear about what problems that could create and what areas may
require special attention in these circumstances. We are beginning an
upgrade from 4.41 to 8.03.407, and have not been using 4.41 for
accounting at all. We are approaching the upgrade more as a fresh
implementation for several reasons including the limited usage of 4.41
currently. Any input you can give is much appreciated.

Thanks,

John Garner
Ken Garner Manufacturing



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
4
The benefit of good ERP systems is that they're integrated systems.



The problem with good ERP systems is that they're integrated systems.
You can't bite off a little bit of ERP.



Unless it is completely un-doable for your business, I'd want to
approach this as a single cutover. I'm guessing you're a relatively
small operation if you're running on something low-end. While the
up-front effort/front-loading involved in doing a single cutover will
seem daunting, I suspect it will be far easier than to trying to stage
it since you'll wind up doing some work twice, and having to clean up a
bunch of issues.



-bws



--

Brian W. Spolarich ~ Manager, Information Services ~ Advanced Photonix /
Picometrix

bspolarich@... ~ 734-864-5618 ~
www.advancedphotonix.com



From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Thomas Rose
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 2:17 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Multi-stage Implementation?



Last year we implemented from legacy systems (a lightweight MRP system
and a low end financial system) to 8.03.403. Any conversion is a
daunting task, so we considered implementing a module at a time. The
problem is there is so much integration between modules that you end up
with a bunch of unlinked data. While it can be done, and we had a plan
to do it, Epicor and most folks on this exchange recommended an all at
once implementation. That was the course we ultimately chose, and I am
pleased we did. We had one weekend of pain (I had to miss my favorite
team's football game on TV which was a major loss for me), but then it
was mostly done. I think I got good advice, primarily because of the
data integration issues.

Thom Rose
Controller
Electric Mirror LLC
HOTEL LUXURY

"The World Leader in Back-lit Mirrors & Mirror TV Technology"

T 425 776-4946
F 425 491-8200
A 11831 Beverly Park Rd, Bldg D, Everett, WA 98204 USA
www.electricmirror.com<http://www.electricmirror.com>

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
Behalf Of riverdive76
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 11:00 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Vantage] Multi-stage Implementation?

Has anyone implemented the manufacturing aspects of Vista/Vantage in
one stage and the accounting in another? I would be very interested
to hear about what problems that could create and what areas may
require special attention in these circumstances. We are beginning an
upgrade from 4.41 to 8.03.407, and have not been using 4.41 for
accounting at all. We are approaching the upgrade more as a fresh
implementation for several reasons including the limited usage of 4.41
currently. Any input you can give is much appreciated.

Thanks,

John Garner
Ken Garner Manufacturing

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
5
Do it all at once. There are some significant differences in default
reflexes depending on whether or not you interface inventory to the GL.

Mike Lowe
Corporate I.T. Manager
Connor Manufacturing Services
Direct: (949) 713-3328
Fax: (949) 666-5268
Cell: (949) 973-7621
Skype: Mike.Lowe
Email: MLowe@... <mailto:MLowe@...>
Web: www.connorms.com <http://www.connorms.com/>


________________________________

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Thomas Rose
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 11:17 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Multi-stage Implementation?



Last year we implemented from legacy systems (a lightweight MRP system
and a low end financial system) to 8.03.403. Any conversion is a
daunting task, so we considered implementing a module at a time. The
problem is there is so much integration between modules that you end up
with a bunch of unlinked data. While it can be done, and we had a plan
to do it, Epicor and most folks on this exchange recommended an all at
once implementation. That was the course we ultimately chose, and I am
pleased we did. We had one weekend of pain (I had to miss my favorite
team's football game on TV which was a major loss for me), but then it
was mostly done. I think I got good advice, primarily because of the
data integration issues.

Thom Rose
Controller
Electric Mirror LLC
HOTEL LUXURY

"The World Leader in Back-lit Mirrors & Mirror TV Technology"

T 425 776-4946
F 425 491-8200
A 11831 Beverly Park Rd, Bldg D, Everett, WA 98204 USA
www.electricmirror.com<http://www.electricmirror.com
<http://www.electricmirror.com> >

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
Behalf Of riverdive76
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 11:00 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Vantage] Multi-stage Implementation?

Has anyone implemented the manufacturing aspects of Vista/Vantage in
one stage and the accounting in another? I would be very interested
to hear about what problems that could create and what areas may
require special attention in these circumstances. We are beginning an
upgrade from 4.41 to 8.03.407, and have not been using 4.41 for
accounting at all. We are approaching the upgrade more as a fresh
implementation for several reasons including the limited usage of 4.41
currently. Any input you can give is much appreciated.

Thanks,

John Garner
Ken Garner Manufacturing

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6
Yes, we implemented the financial/accounting/invoicing pieces first and
then two months later implemented the manufacturing pieces. It actually
went pretty smoothly. It's been about three years and so I don't
remember the details but we did not have any significant issues once we
linked the accounting modules and manufacturing modules. We loaded all
of the manufacturing inventory data, reconciled it with the G/L balances
and then did the link. We shut down manufacturing for a couple of days
to do full inventory counts and then load the data and reconcile.



Barbara



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
7
> Last year we implemented from legacy systems (a lightweight MRP system and
> a low end financial system) to 8.03.403. Any conversion is a daunting
> task, so we considered implementing a module at a time. The problem is
> there is so much integration between modules that you end up with a bunch
> of unlinked data. While it can be done, and we had a plan to do it, Epicor
> and most folks on this exchange recommended an all at once implementation.
> That was the course we ultimately chose, and I am pleased we did. We had
> one weekend of pain (I had to miss my favorite team's football game on TV
> which was a major loss for me), but then it was mostly done. I think I got
> good advice, primarily because of the data integration issues.

I completely agree with Thom. You'll really have a difficult time "cleaning
up" the messes that would have been avoided had you went the whole route at
once.

What you may want to consider is doing a separate financial implementation
in a test environment to get the accountants up to the same level as the
rest of the company. We did a "Progressive Implementation" in a test
environment where we started with an empty database and backed it up. We
added the account numbers and the financial reports - then backed it up. We
kept adding elements and if we made an irrecoverable error, we would restore
the database to the previous step. It worked well in the early stages but
can get hairy as more folks are in there. However, your financials are
common to all areas and I would make sure that works before floating out the
rest of your business.

Mark W.