JD Edwards EnterpriseOne Reviews

We use JD Edwards EnterpriseOne as a standard financial ERP package but we mainly for finance and accounting reporting.

I have been using JD Edwards EnterpriseOne for six months.

The solution was stable.

We did not have any problems with the scalability of JD Edwards EnterpriseOne.

We had a large number of people using the solution in many countries.

I have previously used SAP.

There were implementation issues, which were more related to the customization and setting up the country-specific parameters. When the system was set up correctly, passed the UAT, and we were weeks in production it seems to be very stable.

The solution could be easier to implement. However, the complexity was in our internal processes meeting our country's requirements. Every country has a slightly different process, taxation, and rules. That was the difficult part, not the solution itself. I expect our experience would have been more or less the same with any ERP, such as SAP, Navision, or Dynamics.

We had our own team of five consultants who did the deployments.

There is an annual license for this solution.

I have evaluated other ERP solutions such as SAP, Navision, and Dynamics.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate JD Edwards EnterpriseOne a seven out of ten.

The most valuable feature is the scope of functionality that JD Edwards covers. You could start small with something like financials and HR payroll, and you can expand it to be used for asset maintenance, distribution, manufacturing. It also comes with a development tool set so that you can add onto it fairly easily.

It's quite cost-effective in comparison with other ERPs. The rest of them are all expensive.

They could enhance the reporting tools. We've been looking for a joint venture billing solution, which is actually on the road map, so it's coming.

It's very stable. It's been around for 30 years or so. EnterpriseOne came out in the mid-90s, so that makes it over 20 years old, but they continually add new features and functionality all the time.

It's also very good. It runs on different platforms, so you can pick and choose which hardware system you would like for whatever scale of company you are. I used to work for a very large oil company that ran it for about 15,000 people. I know that there's companies larger than that, as well.

I personally haven't used it recently, but folks on my team have, and the answer is always, "It depends." If it's a fairly straightforward answer, they're very good at pointing you to wherever the technical documentation is so that you can look it up yourself again next time. If it's complex, or there's some debate on whether the item is a bug or functioning as designed, it does take quite some time to get through that, and from a customer perspective, sometimes you have to be pretty persistent.

A lot of it is the partnership. Lots of vendors are willing to sell you a product, but then aren't there when something goes wrong. It really needs to be a relationship for the long term when you're looking for the solution, as well as meeting all of the functional requirements that you have.

I would rate it a 9, because it's the best in the ERPs, as far as I'm concerned, but it's never perfect, so it will never be a 10.

Definitely give JD Edwards a chance, and make sure you talk to other JD Edwards customers before you make your decision.

The most valuable feature for us is its robustness, especially coming from the system we had before because it can do so many more things. For example, we can drill down into the data a lot more. That's a huge advantage for us.

I'm coming out of the Canadian office, and the overall system is hosted out of our US office, which is considerably larger. The Canadian office is a small operation, but we have a system that a company of our size should not be able to afford. We're getting a lot more toys, bells, whistles and stuff like that that we would not otherwise be able to afford. It's helped us tremendously that JD Edwards allows remote access from a location away from where it's hosted.

It's got a steep learning curve. There's a lot of terminology, a lot of extra setup stuff that seems a little complicated and a little bit of extra work that doesn't always seem very necessary. For somebody who understands it a little better, they're going to know why all that extra work was there, but I'm not.

There seemed to be screen after screen of data and attributes. I guess they all have a purpose, but we haven't found what that is because we don't necessarily mine the data or back any of it out. We just don't feel like it's worth the effort right now.

It's rock solid. We've had no issues with instability.

It's been able to scale for our needs and we've had no issues with scaling.

We were previously using Microsoft Dynamics GP and it was not as robust. It was a great place to put data into but a little hard to get data out of. It's much easier to get data out with JD Edwards.

The initial setup took about six to eight months, so it was accelerated. It was essentially all my time for about six or eight months, but it came in on time, on budget, etc., so obviously a lot of thanks to our US office for all their help in getting it done. They've used it for many, many years, so it was just adding a new branch into the software and getting us up to speed. It could have been complex, but because our US office was already using it, it was much simpler.

It's forced us to adhere to business processes, where we were a little loose with our previous ERP. It's a little bit more rigid, and in my opinion, that's not a bad thing. It might seem scary at first, but it's not so bad. Not a lot of other advice to give, but it was a good project for us and it's helped our business. It's great from that perspective.

The programming language is the most valuable feature for me. I'm all about flexibility so that I can respond to what my users need. The fact that we have the capabilities to do our own customizations is huge. The programming language is certainly understandable and manageable for someone at my level. I'm not a programmer all the time but I make mods to the software to support the needs of the business. The interface for making the mods and things like that is straightforward enough and it works. That's very handy.

We're a very small company, so having one product that can run basically almost every aspect of our business is very valuable. There's one thing to manage, one conference to attend. We run everything. We don't have very many third-party apps bolted on.

There's also a time-savings element, and a frustration with the data interface. I've been in the industry for a long time and came before JD Edwards from a situation where we had a number of so-called best-of-breed. Then as IT, you're constantly moving data back and forth and that lends its own set of complications and problems and disconnects. JD Edwards has mitigated a lot of that.

I have found a couple of bugs in my career, but more often it's just a missing functionality or inconsistent interface. I think their Transportation Management module, that's one of the bolt-ons that we have, is very limited. That would probably be my main complaint. We had to buy another solution to address that.

I'm part of the TechSig and I thought it was kind of funny that the top thing on our TechSig list is to bypass the OK button because every time you run a report, it comes up to the "do you want to change your printer?" screen and a user must click OK. It is one of those silly things and it's just an extra click, but it's unnecessary. Yet, it's been there for 20 years probably! That's just a small example.

We implemented it in 2001.

We've had no real issues with deployment.

I would have to say no, definitely no major issues with stability.

As far as scalability goes, we're a very small company, but we were able to implement the portions of the program that we needed. Other than that okay button for the printing, we're able to bypass features that we don't need because we're not a big company. And because of the way it's designed with processing options and version and things like that, we can tailor it for our business needs. As we've grown, we've added new functionalities and we've done a few mods. 

So it's been growing with us. I think we have a long ways to go. We're still a small company and we were probably the smallest customer at the time when we implemented. We're probably not anymore, but we're still very small as far as the arena, so we have a long ways to go before we outgrow it.

At the time, JD Edwards had completely rewritten their software, and I understand that now. I hadn't been exposed to it before. It was very cohesive at the time, I thought, for software. Sometimes you use software and you can almost tell, "oh, this module was bolted on and re-patched, but it clearly was written by a different group with a different focus." Whereas, JD Edwards at the time was all written fairly together with a new vision. I would say that the implementation was pretty good.

It's definitely fulfilled most of our business needs. The flexibility is really number one up there. I have only worked a little bit with other ERP systems, such as SAP, and JD Edwards surpasses that.

When you're comparing JD Edwards to any other tool, look at the flexibility. Look at the capabilities to change it, for it to grow with you as a company, for it to support business needs that you don't need now, but you're going to need in the future. That's very important.

We use this product as our ERP solution. We used to handle all of the ERP functions with EnterpriseOne, although we have now moved work orders, purchase orders, and inventory functions into Maximo. We still have AR and AP in EnterpriseOne.

Essentially, we use Maximo for the operations functions and EnterpriseOne for the financial side.

The interface is very user-friendly.

The reporting functionality is good.

We originally used EnterpriseOne for preventative maintenance, but it is not very good at that so we migrated to Maximo for that task.

We have been using JD Edwards EnterpriseOne for quite some time, since 2007.

Stability-wise, this is a very good solution.

The technical support from Oracle is okay.

We have used this product for many years. I have not noticed much difference between version 9.1 and 9.2.

Quite some time ago, I worked with Oracle EBS and it is not as user-friendly as EnterpriseOne.

I cannot set up EnterpriseOne on my own.

We used to use the Data Access Studio (DAS) to extract data from EnterpriseOne, although we now use Oracle OBIEE for that.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The most valuable feature would be the fact that it is a ERP system that has all of its modules fully integrated without the use of middleware. We use the manufacturing modules extremely heavily.

We have multiple business segments and JD Edwards allows us to integrate modules across those segments. It gives us a seamless communication process, if you will. It's been a choice of management that we use single-source JD Edwards. We try not to go find best-of-breeds, but if it's in JD Edwards, use it.

This is an interesting question because they've been making improvements continuously over the last 25 years. That's one of the things that has caused JD Edwards to sustain itself. Where they might be able to make added improvements are probably in specialized features. If you have something that is a specialized industry use, then focus more on that. Just like this last year, the Oil & Gas SIG got together and they said, "Well, people who do downhole drilling, they do rental tools. They actually need a module that would enable them to be able to rent assets." So the SIG put together a proposal to Oracle for a developed rental tools module. Oracle heard them and they actually took it and they put it together, so in release 9.1, there is a petroleum-based rental tool module.

I've been using it for 28 years. I started on 34 and I was using JD Edwards, so I've been through 34, 36, 38, AS/400, Windows Platform.

We had the normal amount of bugs that you'd have when you roll something out. They have a fairly good change management process and a process for being able to roll out bug fixes. We get constant notification for things that are done that will make improvements. They are all taken advantage of, if we so choose.

They've been continuously improving the stability over the last 25 years.

We own all licenses for our SIG-code industry. Everything that has to do with oil & gas and chemicals, we own all the modules. We've expanded to the point where we've bought everything. We're able to scale without any issue.

Technical support is very good.

JD Edwards is a configurable software solution. They provide you with the ability to be able to configure the software so that you can run your business in the manner that you choose. It could be summarized to say, "You don't have to change the way you run your business to run with the software. It's the opposite. The software wraps around your business." It's as complex or as straightforward as you make it.

Make sure you get reference checks. Check with other companies that are using the software in the manner in which you would like to use it for. What were their pitfalls? What are their successes? How well has it resounded, once it's been implemented for two years, five years? A lot of software works well the first go around, but they fail after that, so you want to make sure.

Transparency in being able to see my data is the most valuable feature. As a maintenance planner, it helps me organize myself and other people, which JD Edwards does in a user-friendly way. We can take it down to somebody probably not very tech-savvy and as well as take it to my technicians. We can show them how to use it. 

We're moving away from paper and it's really, really a tough thing in the maintenance world to move away from that. The thing I like about JD Edwards is, we can give somebody an iPad or we could give them a screen and they can sit down and organize everything. We're bringing everybody up to the 21st century. We can see what's going on live, my managers can see what we're doing on a day-to-day basis, hour-to-hour if they need to. JD Edwards lets us do all that.

We have three different processes with three different software packages. The reason we're going to JD Edwards is that we can unify these systems. We have 7i which is what our maintenance is underneath, and then for a lot of our financials we use SAP. When we go to JD Edwards, we're all underneath one umbrella, everything ties together. That's the world that I came out of from my last company and so we're trying to bring everybody in, so that I can sit and look at it and I don't have to go to another screen to see my budgets or for ordering my parts, for making work orders, for tying everything together, for my receiving, on my POS. I can see exactly where we're at financially when we're doing business; we can see where we're at right down to the hours it's taking us to do it and how much that's costing us. Everything's under one umbrella and so that's why we're going to JD Edwards. It's just incredible for efficiency.

When it comes to work scheduling in their maintenance module, it could be better. Having come from different platforms at different companies I've seen better. I think it could be more intuitive, and I struggle with training my people on how to use it. I can use it and so can and there are several of us that do just fine and great with it, but when it comes to the average person, it's a real struggle. We say, "OK, now you're going to have this job and this is what you're going to do," and that's the one. Of all the things we train them to do in JD Edwards to help us with our business, that's the one we struggle with, is that training right there.

We're just beginning to implement it, but so far we've had no issues with deployment.

I'm new enough that I haven't seen any issues, but I had no stability at my last place either.

It came out of the box and that's how we do our business. We haven't really had to scale it yet.

We have a lot to do, and I'm new to the company as I've only been there for two months. Because it's a brand-new company and it's a robust advance in our software, we're going to stay away from customization as much as we can. We want to keep it as vanilla as we can.

But from what I've seen, it's straightforward because we're keeping it more vanilla, and that's one of the reasons that for those of us who've used JD Edwards, it gives us the opportunity to do a lot more and we don't have to customize as much. We want to stay away because when we upgrade, as we will, then you have to take your customizations with you and we want to stay away from that as much as we can.

We implemented it ourselves with out in-house team.

The one thing they could look at is, how are they doing their business now, and if you're doing business from my end in maintenance, the good news about JD Edwards is that it interfaces completely with Microsoft. My advice is, learn everything that's there. You have all this power and all these powerful features, so train yourself and train your people.

The most valuable feature that I've found is that once it's configured, it's easy to use and maintain from a user standpoint. It's not something you have to keep re-configuring or programming because it breaks often. It's all-around, from implementation and maintenance points-of-view, a nice solution. Historically, JD Edwards is very good at absorbing those types of features into its new product releases.

From an organizational perspective, it obvious that the ease-of-use and ease-of-maintenance aspects of JD Edwards provides us with greater efficiency and, ultimately, cost savings. This is huge for us.

My concern is that it's not keeping pace with what's happening in the real world. Technology's moving on so quickly that the software is struggling to keep up. The company's not really investing enough in the product for additional innovations. For example, it needs to be updated as it looks the same as it did 10 years ago. The UI needs an update and now people are going to buy third-party products more because those are better than JD Edwards at doing specific tasks. Another example of this is that you need to have a third-party tool for reporting and you have to integrate it.

We implemented it in 1999.

The deployment was fairly issues-free. The important part was getting it configured correctly and suitable for our needs.

There are some issues with stability. It's actually hard to get JD Edwards to fix anything anymore. You get the functions as designed a lot of the times, and the user groups struggle to try and get stuff fixed.

It's scalable. You can start with a very small company, add bits to it, and it grows naturally with what your requirements are. Disks are cheap and you can use the same JD Edwards software as you get more complicated. The software gets more complicated with your requirements. It tries to answer everybody's needs as much as it can. You can sit on almost any platform, add more disc, add more users, and the product works very well whether you've got 10, 100, or 1000. Obviously, there's a cost associated with that, but straight out of the box, it's a very scalable tool.

It's relatively straightforward to configure. We only wanted core financials at the time. We've grown since then, and as we've acquired more companies. As our business has grown, we have added a lot more to the solution and a lot more complexity. And we've been able to do that quite efficiently over the years, and that's one of the good things about JD Edwards. You don't have to keep revisiting the box and  the instruction manual, because you can just add stuff as you go.

It's a good attempt at answering everybody's needs. You can never be perfect on every piece of application. JD Edwards, for the last 30 years, has tried its best to be as much of an answer to everything you require, and they've done a very good job of it. 

Any leg work you can do at the beginning to prepare your organization, your executives, and the information that you need to get out of a software company would benefit you greatly. All of that work pays dividends in the long run. You don't get surprises, you don't get led down the garden path by somebody who thinks they know better. 

Talk to people. Talk to as many people as you can. Come to user groups. Be a prospective customer. It's all about that preparation work. Even if you have to recruit somebody into your business that's done it before, it's all about finding that information to begin with.