So clearly people are hell bent on creating as much technical debt and preventing users from doing any self discovery. I find now that descriptions on systems menus have been changed Transfer Order Entry to Transfer Requisition Order Entry… So much for looking that up in help folks.
We’re going Live in January. This project has been one hell of a ride. The business had a custom application for 15 years I think and chose Epicor as their new ERP.
Their business processes are so far off best practice, it’s mind-boggling. Implementing vanilla processes was simply out of the question. We’re talking about changing the entire business culture here.
So, a decision was implicitly made. We will implement Epicor with A LOT of customization and automations, and we will change and realign the processes gradually.
This, of course, creates a lot of technical debt and minimize user knowledge of the fundamental way Epicor operates. But, it enables us to lay the foundation to future improvements and approach changes one step at a time, so that the organisation can at least starts its journey.
In hindsight, I’d do some things differently and stand my ground on certain processes. But no regrets here, the organisation is slowly improving, which was unthinkable a while back.
This sounds like every implementation I’ve been a part of or system I’ve been around unfortunately. Sometimes the customizations are so entrenched I have a difficult time remembering the functionality of base Epicor and how it’s supposed to behave OOB (Out of the Box) base.
Side note is OOB still a thing? When was the last time anyone got software out of a box? Maybe I should be using vanilla? Why is vanilla considered ‘bad’? I actually really like vanilla. Maybe ‘base’ is the best.
Yeah, and a running joke here is that, in 5 years, a new employee/consultant will be hired, will take a look at this stuff, and say to the boss “Whoever implemented this thing is an incompetent asshole. You are very fortunate that I’m here to fix this thing.”
Yet, if this person was sitting here with us, the sames decision would be made.
Aligning Menu Descriptions with Program Descriptions was an Epicor Idea that is now closed. There is still an Idea open to make sure that the Open With Context descriptions also match the program description. I think this was an attempt to remove tech debt. No?
A field was added to the menu table for Alias names to help fix this issue. This was added to based on a suggestion I made. But only finds the first word listed in the field.
It would be nice if an Idea’s final step was a to be closed by the person who created the idea and not Epicor.
I hear you and agree that’s disruptive. Was there functionality change or just the description? We aren’t multi-site here but when I had it (and Inter-Company), there definitely things that would improve the user experience. So, if there was some functionality added/changed, then that might merit a new description.
When did they change the title? We don’t have the module here as we’re single company. But that’d be a big change to me as I’m so used to the old name.