JD Edwards EnterpriseOne Reviews

It is a good product for managing the business. We can manage supply chain and distribution, manufacturing, finance, etc.

I'm a consultant. I work for different clients, and I have worked on different versions, such as XP, 8.12, 9.1, and 9.2.

The good thing about it is that it is very customizable. We can modify it the way we want.

With the new versions, it has become very user-friendly. We have integration with mobiles, and we have cloud-based solutions. There are a lot of things that can be done by front-end users without technical knowledge. They can create reports without having to do any coding, and it's very good now.

If they can research and make the installation part easier or more user-friendly, it would be nice.

I have been using this solution for about 10 years. 

It is very stable.

It is very scalable. The client I'm currently working with has about a thousand users, but I've worked with other clients with a lot more users, such as about 5,000 or so, across different geographies.

There is currently no plan to increase its usage.

It is pretty good, but when we contact Oracle support, we have to first do our homework. They need several things before they look into any issues. 

Oracle provides support for standard things. They support the standard or vanilla product. If we have a lot of customizations, it gets tricky. We are responsible for the things we change, and they are mostly responsible for the standard part. So, the more customizations we have, the trickier it gets.

I used a product from Oracle as a CRM tool, but I haven't used any other ERP. I've only been using JD Edwards.

It is not very straightforward. You need a very technical person to do that or assist you. The installation is okay, but when you're implementing, you have to do adjustments to make it work for your business. So, it does require a little bit of technical expertise. You might need help from Oracle as well. 

The installation takes a few days, but the implementation can take a few months.

In terms of maintenance, in the current team that I'm working with, there are about 25 to 30 people for IT support for 1,000 users.

I find it really good. I have limited exposure to the product, and from my point of view, it is very customizable. It is very good because we can modify the way we want. It is stable as long as we are following Oracle guidelines.

I would definitely recommend it to others. I love it. With the new versions, it has become very good. 

I would rate it a nine out of 10.

I help implement it, set it up, and support it. It is really good for clients who use it for financials, supply chain, payroll, human resources, and manufacturing, so almost everything.

I use multiple versions of it, such as 9.0, 9.1, and 9.2, because I support many customers. In terms of deployment, the customers have all kinds of deployments such as traditional data centers, public cloud, and private cloud.

It brings operational efficiency by integrating different processes within the organization into one system. It also brings best practices of the industry into your processes. You can configure the processes within the software in a way that they align with the best practices that exist in the industry.

It is highly configurable. You have a choice in terms of how you want to run it. You can run it in your own data center, in a private cloud, or in a public cloud. The choice is really up to the customer.

They have been improving it every day, but it could have more automation. 

I have been working with this solution for 19 years. 

It is pretty stable now. There were earlier releases that weren't as stable, but it is becoming more and more stable every day.

It can scale if architected well. It is highly configurable, and it is dependent on how a customer chooses to set it up. It is built to scale for 5,000 users. It is not really a limit, but 5,000 or less is where it performs well.

Their technical support is good.

Our clients have used legacy systems, homegrown systems, and other ERP solutions.

It is complex. In terms of deployment, you can get it all up and running within a month, but its implementation is a long process. It depends on the size of the organization and the number of processes they're trying to implement. So, implementations can take anywhere from six months to two years, depending on how big the organization is.

The number of staff required for deployment and maintenance depends on the implementation. In terms of their roles, there are system admin and developers. Then there are application consultants or business analysts. They are the people who have expertise in a particular domain such as financials, supply chain, or manufacturing. So, it depends on the different processes that you are going to set up in JD Edwards. You could have an organization that is only implementing financials, and in that case, you only need one financial SME, but if you have an organization that is going to implement financials, manufacturing, and supply chain, you're going to need SMEs for these areas.

It depends on the number of users and the modules that you want to buy. It is licensed on a perpetual license basis. You buy the license costs upfront, and then there is maintenance for support that you pay every year, which is typically about 20%.

The expense also depends on an organization's IT strategy, such as whether they're going to support the system internally or whether they're going to get an external vendor like my company to help support it.

Make sure that you have the right strategy on whether you're going to support it internally or you're going to hire an external vendor for it. It needs a specialized skill set; it is not something that anyone can just support.

I would rate it an eight out of 10. This is based on what I've heard from my customers and people who use other solutions. I haven't worked with too many other products to give a fair comparison.

Recently, we helped one of our clients to implement centralized procurement using the solution. Our clients used to handle their procurement activities separately for individual countries. Now, they have centralized procurement. We do not implement the solution for our clients. We do small projects like improvements to the existing systems.

The solution’s Accounts Payable and Procurement modules are the most stable and quite useful compared to other finance modules. For modules related to finance, we are quite satisfied with the AP, General Accounting, Procurement, Sales, and Inventory modules.

During our procurement centralization project, we noticed that the EDI interface is slightly complicated. Certain fields are insignificant, but we have to enter information into those fields because the system would not proceed further without those inputs. So, the EDI interface should be improved. The Fixed Asset module is not desirable because it is complicated.

Though the solution has a lot of good features, I do not like the dashboard. If VA tools can be integrated into the solution, it will be helpful for key decision-makers in the organization, like CFOs and CIOs. Currently, these decision-makers rely on a separate VA tool to obtain information.

I have been using JD Edwards since 2007.

The stability of the solution has been a challenge. I would rate stability a seven out of ten.

The scalability of the product is not great. Some users are more comfortable with SAP as compared to JD Edwards. Our clients are generally medium-sized enterprises. I rate the scalability a five out of ten.

The technical support is good. Oracle responds to the queries we post. They are quite knowledgeable. Support has not been a challenge for us.

Positive

In my previous organization, I used Tally. JD Edwards is a much more vast and better tool when compared to Tally. The best part about JD Edwards is that it is an integrated system. All the modules are interrelated. The transactions are interfaced with the finance system, which serves as a reporting mechanism.

If a client asks us to create a new report, our developer takes more time to create the report. If there were any tools available within JD Edwards, it could have helped the developer to code faster.

Since I have been working with the solution for around 15 years, I find the initial setup and configuration simple and straightforward. We need basic experience and domain knowledge to easily understand the configuration and setups. I rate the initial setup a nine out of ten.

The deployment of the solution does not take much time. It is manageable. The CNC administrator team manages the deployment. Deployment is not a challenge.

I am a subject matter expert for finance. People looking to start using JD Edwards should look at the chart of accounts and other basic setups in the finance modules to get an overview of the solution. I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.

This is a stable and solid product. 

We've lost the second and third layer of support to a company that specializes in JD Edwards, so they do all the changes for us. 

I've been using this solution for 12 years. 

We have some small issues but the stability is fine. 

The scalability is good. 

We have a monthly SOA meeting. Tech support is always busy with tickets, incidents, changes and service requests.

The initial setup is somewhere between straightforward and complex. It was not straightforward, but it was done a while ago and would likely be simpler these days. We used a third party for our implementation 12 years ago. We now have 600 users. 

We've seen a return on our investment. 

The licensing costs are reasonable. 

I recommend this solution and rate it 10 out of 10. 

JD Edwards EnterpriseOne has different use cases here in Brazil. The solution is used by various different companies, but my company usually works with agribusiness, health, financial, gas and oil companies.

Flexibility is the most valuable aspect of JD Edwards EnterpriseOne because it allows personalization.

I also like the excellent user experience and improved user interface in the newest version of JD Edwards EnterpriseOne.

What would make JD Edwards EnterpriseOne better is an improvement in the reporting tool.

In the future, I want Oracle to continue investing time in JD Edwards Orchestrator because it provides great improvements to automate business tasks and create integrations easily.

I have sixteen years of experience with JD Edwards EnterpriseOne.

JD Edwards EnterpriseOne is a stable solution, so it's a ten out of ten in terms of stability.

JD Edwards EnterpriseOne scalability is good. You can host the solution on an on-premise machine. You can also install it on the cloud. When you install JD Edwards EnterpriseOne on the cloud, you can scale it whenever, so its scalability level still depends on your architecture and infrastructure.

Regarding scalability, JD Edwards EnterpriseOne is a nine out of ten.

The technical support for JD Edwards EnterpriseOne is good. My team needs to open a service request, and then support gives my team the answer and resolution, so it's good.

Regarding the initial setup of JD Edwards EnterpriseOne, its difficulty level depends on the size of the company and the business requirements. Still, JD Edwards EnterpriseOne is not a complex ERP system to set up.

My company has no complaints about the setup, so it's okay. It's a nine out of ten, setup-wise.

Upgrading projects can make JD Edwards EnterpriseOne costlier, so it needs cost reduction in this area.

My company is an Oracle partner. I have experience with one of the Oracle on-premise ERPs, JD Edwards EnterpriseOne.

I've worked with different versions of the solution, old and new.

Maintaining JD Edwards EnterpriseOne requires at least one technical consultant and two to three functional consultants, depending on the business model. A developer is needed when creating new applications and reports.

I advise anyone planning to use JD Edwards EnterpriseOne to keep it up-to-date because Oracle provides new functionalities, so you should continually update the solution to the latest version. Keep an annual upgrade schedule, so you always have your JD Edwards EnterpriseOne in the upgraded version.

My rating for the solution is ten out of ten.

EnterpriseOne's integration could be improved.

I've been using EnterpriseOne for more than twenty years.

EnterpriseOne is stable and can be customized according to customer requirements. 

EnterpriseOne is scalable for large enterprises.

EnterpriseOne is cost-effective for large enterprises.

I wouldn't recommend EnterpriseOne for small enterprises because the cost-benefit doesn't work out. But for large enterprises, it's a very good and cost-effective solution that's competitive with other products like SAP. I would rate EnterpriseOne nine out of ten.

We use this solution for the financial model. We use it for accounts receivable, with payments, accounting, fixed assets, inventory, and purchasing.

We are a quite large B2B company. The solution is deployed on-premise.

I think it is strong in sales, inventory, and pricing.

Something that could be included is a supply chain management system. That's what we're looking for.

I have been using this solution for 25 years.

Stability is good.

Scalability is good. We can do a lot without any problems. We have about 600 people using this solution.

Setup is simple. For deployment, we used eight people to run the software.

We used both consultants and resellers for deployment.

The licensing costs are on a yearly basis, and there are no additional costs.

I would rate this solution 10 out of 10.

We are using the latest version. 

We use the solution for operational requirements, including procurement, inventory and management. As we are advocates of contraction, we cover almost everything within the system. 

We found that the system was unable to address many of our concerns, especially when it comes to project management. We actually found it to be quite hard to use and to lack user-friendliness, which is the reason we decided to move. 

While the overall function for providing coverage is good, the way the system works turned out to be a bit difficult. Efficiency was an issue, as well as user-friendliness. Something which would take five minutes in a standard ERP, takes 10 with the solution. The method of handling the entire transactions should be greatly simplified.

When it comes to scalability, a much larger team is needed to handle the system than would otherwise be the case with an SAP solution. 

The solution is really expensive. 

If used properly, one can see a return on his investment. If not, it will cost a person a lot of money. It's that simple. 

I have worked with technical support and it actually involves two types of consultants, one technical and the other functional. The technical requirements, such as coding, which comprise the backend, should have more people involved for delivering what is needed.

We have been using JD Edwards EnterpriseOne in excess of four to five years. 

The solution is stable.

When it comes to scalability, a much larger team is needed to handle the system than would otherwise be the case with an SAP solution.

The solution is used extensively in our organization. 

I have worked with technical support and it actually involves two types of consultants, one technical and the other functional. The technical requirements, such as coding, which comprise the backend, should have more people involved for delivering what is needed. 

We have plans to move to another solution. 

Much cost-consuming staff is needed for deployment and maintenance. 

If used properly, one can see a return on his investment. If not, it will cost a person a lot of money. It's that simple.

The solution is really expensive.

When it comes to scalability, a much larger team is needed to handle the system than would otherwise be the case with an SAP solution.

The deployment is handled through a third party; in which we have a team of consultants. They handle everything, from the setup, to the implementation, to the training. 

My advice to others is that they use what is available in the system and not attempt to exceed its capacity. 

I rate JD Edwards EnterpriseOne as a five out of ten.