KLAS Contact
Contact KLAS
Contact KLAS
2024 BEST IN KLAS
Preferences
Related Series
2023
2019
2015
2010
2006
Related Segments
ERP 2020
A Deep Dive on the Pillars of ERP
Author
Tanya Egbert
ERP purchase decisions are based on a variety of factors, including both high-level considerations (like vendor relationships and performance across the pillars of ERP) and individual client needs in specific areas of functionality. This report offers both a broad perspective of ERP vendors’ overall performance and an in-depth analysis of key functionalities within each pillar. As data was gathered via KLAS’ standard evaluation and a special supplemental evaluation, sample sizes often vary across metrics.
Overall ERP View
Workday Steady High Performer but Has Some Supply Chain Gaps; Oracle Shows Significant Improvement
Workday customers feel the ERP solution meets their needs overall and works as expected. Human capital management (HCM) is seen as Workday’s core strength, while clients view supply chain as immature and report development gaps (e.g., inventory management). Customers are generally optimistic supply chain will improve, mostly because Workday has consistently communicated the product road map and demonstrated a track record of keeping promises. Oracle Cloud customers’ satisfaction has markedly improved in the last year (up 20+ points). While the system has some inconsistencies and room to improve, customers are optimistic about its direction and progress; as one respondent put it, clients feel Oracle has moved from “bug-fix mode” to “enhancement” mode. Support has also improved—credited to direct, assigned representatives. Premier (a healthcare-specific vendor) delivers a solid product for supply chain and financials. Updates are regular and smooth, and Premier is the only measured vendor with strong development ratings for supply chain. Clients say Premier delivers proactive support and listens well. The vendor’s lack of HCM functionality is mentioned as a challenge by a handful of customers.
Infor Inconsistent: Implementation & Support Issues Lead to Product Challenges
Infor ERP customers are the least satisfied overall. While a few newly live customers see potential in CloudSuite and express optimism about future improvement, for the vast majority, relationship issues and poor communication hinder satisfaction. Many respondents cite poor implementations with little involvement from Infor. Across pillars, some functionalities are described as basic (e.g., fixed asset management) and others as overly complex (e.g., benefits and leave management). Lackluster support and training post-implementation amplify product challenges. Allscripts customers have seen little development in the last few years and have not heard of any plans to move to the cloud—as a result, 62% say the solution is not part of their long-term plans. Due to Allscripts’ low market energy, they were not a focus in this research.
Human Capital Management (HCM)
HCM-Only ERP Solutions
API Healthcare’s and Kronos’ ERP solutions solely cover HCM. Typically chosen for specific needs, these systems are described as stable and operating well for client expectations. API Healthcare customers (who are mostly hospitals under 500 beds) feel the solution adequately meets their needs. A couple are cautiously optimistic the 2019 symplr acquisition could help the product evolve. Kronos customers say tight integration with the time and attendance system enhances payroll capabilities. On the negative side, respondents do not feel Kronos is highly engaged with them.
Oracle and Workday Seen as Well Developed in HCM; Infor Has Work to Do
HCM is Oracle’s, Workday’s, and Infor’s most established ERP pillar. Several Oracle customers emphasize the solution can handle healthcare complexities, like multiple payroll types. Workday customers praise the HCM functionality’s comprehensive nature. Infor users describe the HCM functionality as basic and behind other vendors’ solutions. Optimistic about Infor’s recent efforts to listen to customers, a couple of respondents express hope for deeper development.
Workday Customers Have Broadest Deployment of HCM Functionalities
100% of Workday respondents use the employee information module, saying it is easy to use and successfully feeds data into other HCM modules for centralized, accurate data. Most other HCM modules are seen as stable yet flexible enough to meet customer needs. Clients feel the recruiting piece is complex and laborious to maintain. Infor was not validated for use of payroll functionality in the cloud; rather, interviewed customers use Lawson S3. This split in functionality between cloud and on-premises solutions makes it challenging for some to identify functionality gains from moving to the cloud.
Almost All Oracle HCM Users Identify Positive ROI
Oracle users are the most likely to report a positive ROI from HCM—organizations say they can do more work with less resources as a result of the solution. Both Oracle and Workday customers feel they are rarely nickel-and-dimed, enhancing value. This stands in contrast to the HCM-only vendors, API Healthcare and Kronos, whose customers often feel they are charged extra for things needed to fully optimize the solution—e.g., training and certain aspects of reporting.
Supply Chain
Premier Seen as Most Developed for Supply Chain; Full-Suite ERP Vendors Lagging Behind
Supply chain is, on average, the least developed ERP pillar across vendors. Premier (supply chain and financials only, no HCM) stands out for strong supply chain development. Respondents see Premier as an established cloud vendor with a flexible solution and smooth, well-tested upgrades. Oracle’s solution is seen as stable for supply chain but needing workflow and reporting improvements to enhance development satisfaction. Infor customers are divided on perception of supply chain development; those who are satisfied express optimism about Infor’s direction, while dissatisfied respondents cite functionality gaps (e.g., issues with the item master). Supply chain is Workday’s newest pillar and is currently underdeveloped for organizations’ needs (e.g., inventory management); respondents are optimistic Workday will make the improvement they need.
Infor, Oracle Customers Adopting More Supply Chain Functionality Compared to Workday
Infor and Oracle customers utilizing supply chain functionality frequently adopt requisition and procurement tools along with inventory management. These tools from Infor are described as working as they should, though some issues slow down processes (e.g., self-service). With Oracle, procurement functionality is perceived as easy to use and “dialed in.” The vendor’s inventory management tools can be time intensive and challenging to make adjustments in. Workday customers see gaps across supply chain functionalities. Allscripts customers report the solution meets their needs, though several say it is outdated and feel that development is not a priority for Allscripts.
Premier Delivers Best Value with Supply Chain, Followed by Oracle
No Premier supply chain customers report nickel-and-diming, and the vendor has the highest money’s worth rating (8.1 out of 9.0). Customers reference positive, proactive relationships with available, knowledgeable support personnel and executives. Positive ROI is also supported by the solution’s well-organized user interface and the ease of accessing information. Oracle customers with a positive ROI cite improved supply chain functionalities/controls that reduce cost and heighten efficiency. A few respondents want better implementation change management and more robust training to help them utilize the tool more fully and increase value. Most Workday customers are getting the value they expected from current supply chain functionality and expect more value from additional development. Infor supply chain users struggle to identify tangible outcomes, hindering perceived value. Half of respondents feel nickel-and-dimed by unexpected charges.
Financials
With Exception of Infor, Financial Pillar Well Developed across Vendors
Oracle, Premier, and Workday customers all feel their product’s financial pillar is well developed. Oracle users appreciate continued enhancements, and most feel the solution has all needed functionality. Workday is seen as engaged and motivated to improve, which contributes to satisfaction with the financials side. Overall, customers feel the financial functionality gets the job done. Premier respondents see their financial modules as functional, though slightly less developed than Premier’s supply chain pillar and somewhat limited compared to other vendors’ tools. Infor lags behind the market on financials development. Customers who report solid development cite regular solution changes and improvements. However, these and other respondents say that currently, the solution is overly complex and unintuitive.
Workday Customers Adopting Most Financial Functionalities; Premier Customers Have Lowest Adoption
100% of interviewed Workday financials customers are doing cost accounting and/or expense management and GL/accounts payable in the ERP solution. They mention straightforward allocations that help them quickly close. The handful using budgeting and planning express excitement about using the Adaptive Planning tool in the future, though few have implemented it so far. Premier customers using the GL/accounts payable module feel it is simple and easy to navigate. Customers mention functionality gaps for payroll, tied to the vendor’s lack of an HCM pillar. This dissuades some from adopting Premier for financials, instead relying on their HCM vendor.
Workday Delivers Strong ROI; Infor Customers Unsure of Value
Workday financials users see a positive ROI in the form of efficiency and visibility, as well as detailed reporting; a couple of customers have reduced days to close since implementing the solution. Premier continues to deliver value for financial users, based mostly on positive relationships (described in detail above). Infor financials users struggle to identify clear gains. Many feel they are still early in their CloudSuite experience or that the product is still in development. Those who report a negative ROI have invested heavily in the product and struggled to get it up and running to meet their needs—this causes some to feel stuck with the solution.
About This Report
Each year, KLAS interviews thousands of healthcare professionals about the IT products and services their organizations use. These interviews are conducted using a standard quantitative evaluation, and the scores and commentary collected are shared in reports like this one and online in real time so that other providers and IT professionals can benefit from their peers’ experiences. To enable readers to more quickly understand high-level differences in vendor performance and give better context as to how each product compares to other offerings in the market, KLAS has organized the questions from the standard evaluation into six customer experience pillars—culture, loyalty, operations, product, relationship, and value.
To supplement the data gathered with this standard evaluation, KLAS also creates various supplemental evaluations that target a subset of KLAS’ overall sampling and delve deeper into the most pressing questions facing healthcare technology today.
The data in this report comes from both evaluation types and was collected over the last 12 months; the number of unique responding organizations for each is given in the chart below.
What Does “Limited Data” Mean?
Some products are used in only a small number of facilities, some vendors are resistant to providing client lists, and some respondents choose not to answer particular questions. Thus a vendor’s sample size may vary from question to question and may not reach KLAS’ required threshold of 15 unique respondents. When a vendor’s sample size for a particular question is less than 15, the score for that question is marked with an asterisk (*) or otherwise designated as “limited data.” If the sample size is less than 6, no score is shown. Note that when a vendor has a low number of reporting sites, the possibility exists for KLAS scores to change significantly as new surveys are collected.
Overall scores are measured on a 100-point scale and represent the weighted average of several yes/no questions as well as other questions scored on a 9-point scale.
Product Designations Used in This Report
- Component [C]: Product that typically includes most but not all components that comprise a complete system or that serves only a subset of the market. Measured solutions from API Healthcare and Kronos are marked as component because they are specific to human capital management and do not provide supply chain or financials functionality.
Writer
Amanda Wind Smith
Designer
Jess Wallace-Simpson
Project Manager
Mary Brown
This material is copyrighted. Any organization gaining unauthorized access to this report will be liable to compensate KLAS for the full retail price. Please see the KLAS DATA USE POLICY for information regarding use of this report. © 2024 KLAS Research, LLC. All Rights Reserved. NOTE: Performance scores may change significantly when including newly interviewed provider organizations, especially when added to a smaller sample size like in emerging markets with a small number of live clients. The findings presented are not meant to be conclusive data for an entire client base.