Vantage & SQL Blank Title 54826

Mark,

Excellent advice Mark, I can definetly relate to what you are
saying. Fortunatly "maybe" for us we have a COO/CFO who has worked
with ERP systems in the past so he is familiar with how they are
supposed to work, at least on the accounting side. Additionally,
with hiring me on as the IT Manager, he recently started trying to
change the mindset of of those set in their ways by examing how we
are currently using the system, making changes here and there, and
having me push training. However, this is causing a ripple affect
and many seeking employment elsewhere, which is a whole nother
topic. This could be a good thing in the long run but it hurts for
a while at first.

With your advice, I going to write a proposal to my COO/CFO to have
him push training because, as you said, users look for work arounds
when change comes from IT, which I have noticed. Nobody has time
for training.

On a side note: I'm glad I found this group; you all have been very
helpful and I look forward to returning the advice when I can.

Thanks,
Tony

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Dupuis" <dupuism@...> wrote:
>
> Tony,
>
>
>
> Just a thought on your approach. In my experience you cannot
effect lasting
> change by driving it from the IT side. The driving force must
come from
> upper management. Preferably from as high up as possible. When
change is
> pushed from the IT group the users tend to only look for system
work a
> rounds. They tend to be very focused on their issues and do not
usually see
> the big picture. In the worst case scenario management does not
have a clue
> and you are forced to use your talents to create system routines
that
> circumvent Vantage best practices. Are there others at your
company who see
> the need to get your business process's in line with the ERP
system? If not
> you have already lost the battle for change.
>
>
>
> Just my 2 cents
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of
> sheehanam21
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 7:37 PM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Vantage] Re: Vantage & SQL
>
>
>
> Todd,
>
> I think I may have led you astray. Everyone here is very dependant
> on Vantage and have been for the past 7 years. However, training
> was never made a priority and I've only been here since September
06.
>
> As you can probably tell, people are set in their ways and the
ways
> they have been using Vantage isn't in line with the way they
should
> be using it. Trying to get everyone to change is rather difficult
> and takes babysteps, which is why I believe changing things about
> the system, like implementing SQL, would allow me to provide the
> users with tools to allow them to input and extract different
> information.
>
> Thanks,
> Tony
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%
40yahoogroups.com> .com, "Todd
> Hofert" <todd@> wrote:
> >
> > Tony,
> >
> >
> >
> > I would guess that most people who are on V6.1, either purchased
> it with
> > Progress or they purchased it with SQL. As a result they are in
> the same
> > boat you are in. They are familiar with and can speak to the
> performance
> > of what they have but cannot accurately comment or compare to the
> > performance of the product they don't have.
> >
> >
> >
> > I do not have 6.1 SQL installed anywhere so I cannot
categorically
> say
> > so but the word on the street is that the performance
differences
> are
> > very significant. That is enough to make me leery enough to not
> propose
> > a change without determining for myself how significant the
> differences
> > are.
> >
> >
> >
> > Your previous message referring to people being to busy to use
the
> > software sounds a lot more like an implementation issue and not a
> > platform issue. I would spend some time taking a hard look at
why
> the
> > software isn't working for them and tend to that. If no one is
> using it,
> > it doesn't really matter what the database is.
> >
> >
> >
> > Just my two cents.
> >
> >
> >
> > Todd
> >
> >
> >
> > From: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
> [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%
40yahoogroups.com> .com] On
> Behalf
> > Of sheehanam21
> > Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 12:50 PM
> > To: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
> > Subject: [Vantage] Vantage & SQL
> >
> >
> >
> > I am hearing a lot of negative things about haveing SQL as the
> > database for Vantage.
> >
> > Is there anyone out there that is running or has run Vantage 6.1
> on
> > SQL that is willing to tell me how good or bad this is working
for
> you
> > and how many users access your system.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tony
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and
> privileged
> > information. If you are not the intended recipient, please
notify
> the
> > sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and
> destroy any
> > copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person
> other
> > than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
I am hearing a lot of negative things about haveing SQL as the
database for Vantage.

Is there anyone out there that is running or has run Vantage 6.1 on
SQL that is willing to tell me how good or bad this is working for you
and how many users access your system.

Thanks,
Tony
When I attended perspectives 2006, there seemed to be a consensus among
Epicor personnel that SQL was where the product migration paths were
heading.





________________________________

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of sheehanam21
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 12:50 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Vantage & SQL



I am hearing a lot of negative things about haveing SQL as the
database for Vantage.

Is there anyone out there that is running or has run Vantage 6.1 on
SQL that is willing to tell me how good or bad this is working for you
and how many users access your system.

Thanks,
Tony





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



I would guess that most people who are on V6.1, either purchased it with
Progress or they purchased it with SQL. As a result they are in the same
boat you are in. They are familiar with and can speak to the performance
of what they have but cannot accurately comment or compare to the
performance of the product they don't have.



I do not have 6.1 SQL installed anywhere so I cannot categorically say
so but the word on the street is that the performance differences are
very significant. That is enough to make me leery enough to not propose
a change without determining for myself how significant the differences
are.



Your previous message referring to people being to busy to use the
software sounds a lot more like an implementation issue and not a
platform issue. I would spend some time taking a hard look at why the
software isn't working for them and tend to that. If no one is using it,
it doesn't really matter what the database is.



Just my two cents.



Todd



From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of sheehanam21
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 12:50 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Vantage & SQL



I am hearing a lot of negative things about haveing SQL as the
database for Vantage.

Is there anyone out there that is running or has run Vantage 6.1 on
SQL that is willing to tell me how good or bad this is working for you
and how many users access your system.

Thanks,
Tony





This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged
information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any
copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other
than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal.

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

I think I may have led you astray. Everyone here is very dependant
on Vantage and have been for the past 7 years. However, training
was never made a priority and I've only been here since September 06.

As you can probably tell, people are set in their ways and the ways
they have been using Vantage isn't in line with the way they should
be using it. Trying to get everyone to change is rather difficult
and takes babysteps, which is why I believe changing things about
the system, like implementing SQL, would allow me to provide the
users with tools to allow them to input and extract different
information.

Thanks,
Tony

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Todd Hofert" <todd@...> wrote:
>
> Tony,
>
>
>
> I would guess that most people who are on V6.1, either purchased
it with
> Progress or they purchased it with SQL. As a result they are in
the same
> boat you are in. They are familiar with and can speak to the
performance
> of what they have but cannot accurately comment or compare to the
> performance of the product they don't have.
>
>
>
> I do not have 6.1 SQL installed anywhere so I cannot categorically
say
> so but the word on the street is that the performance differences
are
> very significant. That is enough to make me leery enough to not
propose
> a change without determining for myself how significant the
differences
> are.
>
>
>
> Your previous message referring to people being to busy to use the
> software sounds a lot more like an implementation issue and not a
> platform issue. I would spend some time taking a hard look at why
the
> software isn't working for them and tend to that. If no one is
using it,
> it doesn't really matter what the database is.
>
>
>
> Just my two cents.
>
>
>
> Todd
>
>
>
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf
> Of sheehanam21
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 12:50 PM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Vantage] Vantage & SQL
>
>
>
> I am hearing a lot of negative things about haveing SQL as the
> database for Vantage.
>
> Is there anyone out there that is running or has run Vantage 6.1
on
> SQL that is willing to tell me how good or bad this is working for
you
> and how many users access your system.
>
> Thanks,
> Tony
>
>
>
>
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and
privileged
> information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify
the
> sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and
destroy any
> copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person
other
> than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Tony,



Just a thought on your approach. In my experience you cannot effect lasting
change by driving it from the IT side. The driving force must come from
upper management. Preferably from as high up as possible. When change is
pushed from the IT group the users tend to only look for system work a
rounds. They tend to be very focused on their issues and do not usually see
the big picture. In the worst case scenario management does not have a clue
and you are forced to use your talents to create system routines that
circumvent Vantage best practices. Are there others at your company who see
the need to get your business process's in line with the ERP system? If not
you have already lost the battle for change.



Just my 2 cents

Mark





_____

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
sheehanam21
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 7:37 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Re: Vantage & SQL



Todd,

I think I may have led you astray. Everyone here is very dependant
on Vantage and have been for the past 7 years. However, training
was never made a priority and I've only been here since September 06.

As you can probably tell, people are set in their ways and the ways
they have been using Vantage isn't in line with the way they should
be using it. Trying to get everyone to change is rather difficult
and takes babysteps, which is why I believe changing things about
the system, like implementing SQL, would allow me to provide the
users with tools to allow them to input and extract different
information.

Thanks,
Tony

--- In vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com, "Todd
Hofert" <todd@...> wrote:
>
> Tony,
>
>
>
> I would guess that most people who are on V6.1, either purchased
it with
> Progress or they purchased it with SQL. As a result they are in
the same
> boat you are in. They are familiar with and can speak to the
performance
> of what they have but cannot accurately comment or compare to the
> performance of the product they don't have.
>
>
>
> I do not have 6.1 SQL installed anywhere so I cannot categorically
say
> so but the word on the street is that the performance differences
are
> very significant. That is enough to make me leery enough to not
propose
> a change without determining for myself how significant the
differences
> are.
>
>
>
> Your previous message referring to people being to busy to use the
> software sounds a lot more like an implementation issue and not a
> platform issue. I would spend some time taking a hard look at why
the
> software isn't working for them and tend to that. If no one is
using it,
> it doesn't really matter what the database is.
>
>
>
> Just my two cents.
>
>
>
> Todd
>
>
>
> From: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
[mailto:vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com] On
Behalf
> Of sheehanam21
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 12:50 PM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
> Subject: [Vantage] Vantage & SQL
>
>
>
> I am hearing a lot of negative things about haveing SQL as the
> database for Vantage.
>
> Is there anyone out there that is running or has run Vantage 6.1
on
> SQL that is willing to tell me how good or bad this is working for
you
> and how many users access your system.
>
> Thanks,
> Tony
>
>
>
>
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and
privileged
> information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify
the
> sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and
destroy any
> copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person
other
> than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>





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



I agree with Mark in this. Having been through three implementations (2
successes, 1 failure) you have to have management on board if you are to use
the software to full effectiveness. The one failure I mentioned ended up
with the software installed but not being used effectively as everybody did
their own thing to make the "new" system work like the "old" system.



I'm on the management side so I can't help you with the technical aspect of
your question. I know enough IT to bridge the gag between manufacturing and
IT and that's all. I can tell you that without management support you are
working uphill. What ever route you take you are going to have problems if
management is not on board. The other down side is that you are the new guy
and IT. If it doesn't work it's going to be your fault. IMHO you need to
work the management solution as much as the tech solution.



My $.02.



Sincerely,



Mitchell Kirby

Riten Industries, Inc.

<http://www.riten.com/> www.riten.com



740-333-8719 Direct

800-338-0027 Sales

800-338-0717 FAX

_____

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Mark Dupuis
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 8:04 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Re: Vantage & SQL



Tony,

Just a thought on your approach. In my experience you cannot effect lasting
change by driving it from the IT side. The driving force must come from
upper management. Preferably from as high up as possible. When change is
pushed from the IT group the users tend to only look for system work a
rounds. They tend to be very focused on their issues and do not usually see
the big picture. In the worst case scenario management does not have a clue
and you are forced to use your talents to create system routines that
circumvent Vantage best practices. Are there others at your company who see
the need to get your business process's in line with the ERP system? If not
you have already lost the battle for change.

Just my 2 cents

Mark

_____

From: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
[mailto:vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com] On
Behalf Of
sheehanam21
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 7:37 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
Subject: [Vantage] Re: Vantage & SQL

Todd,

I think I may have led you astray. Everyone here is very dependant
on Vantage and have been for the past 7 years. However, training
was never made a priority and I've only been here since September 06.

As you can probably tell, people are set in their ways and the ways
they have been using Vantage isn't in line with the way they should
be using it. Trying to get everyone to change is rather difficult
and takes babysteps, which is why I believe changing things about
the system, like implementing SQL, would allow me to provide the
users with tools to allow them to input and extract different
information.

Thanks,
Tony

--- In vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com, "Todd
Hofert" <todd@...> wrote:
>
> Tony,
>
>
>
> I would guess that most people who are on V6.1, either purchased
it with
> Progress or they purchased it with SQL. As a result they are in
the same
> boat you are in. They are familiar with and can speak to the
performance
> of what they have but cannot accurately comment or compare to the
> performance of the product they don't have.
>
>
>
> I do not have 6.1 SQL installed anywhere so I cannot categorically
say
> so but the word on the street is that the performance differences
are
> very significant. That is enough to make me leery enough to not
propose
> a change without determining for myself how significant the
differences
> are.
>
>
>
> Your previous message referring to people being to busy to use the
> software sounds a lot more like an implementation issue and not a
> platform issue. I would spend some time taking a hard look at why
the
> software isn't working for them and tend to that. If no one is
using it,
> it doesn't really matter what the database is.
>
>
>
> Just my two cents.
>
>
>
> Todd
>
>
>
> From: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
[mailto:vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com] On
Behalf
> Of sheehanam21
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 12:50 PM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
> Subject: [Vantage] Vantage & SQL
>
>
>
> I am hearing a lot of negative things about haveing SQL as the
> database for Vantage.
>
> Is there anyone out there that is running or has run Vantage 6.1
on
> SQL that is willing to tell me how good or bad this is working for
you
> and how many users access your system.
>
> Thanks,
> Tony
>
>
>
>
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and
privileged
> information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify
the
> sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and
destroy any
> copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person
other
> than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

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





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