PeopleSoft Reviews

• Search engine (like Google)
• Mobile app
• Self service
• Performance
• Others

For example, any time you need to search information for any employee, you do not need to navigate through different screens and menus. You just type any information about the person and you can start to navigate. It's very practical and saves a lots of time. Its also easier for employees that only access the application one or two times per month.

It improved payroll calculations and control, employee visibility, self service, and other areas.

Reports can definitely be improved. There are very few core reports. Every time you have a request for information, you need to customize a report. It would be great to have a report generator that could bring more flexibility and speed to delivering information to end users.

I have used it for more than five years.

I have not encountered any stability issues.

I have not encountered any scalability issues. (We use it for almost 100K employees.)

I rate technical support 5/10.

We previously used a different solution and we switched due to internal developments.

Initial setup was complex.

I was not at the company at the time, but I know they evaluated other local solutions before choosing this product.

Be careful with consulting. We have had a difficult time identifying consultants in Latin America (mostly in Brazil).

The Strategic Module – with features such as Profile Management, Performance Management, Career Planning, Succession Planning, Recruitment, Global Payroll, and Administer Training.

Organizations can manage the talent that support business objectives.

There is room for improvement in the Operation Module, such as Time Labor, and Global Absence, where every country has different regulations. That's the challenge for Oracle: to bridge the customization.

I have been using it for six years.

We have encountered stability issues, but the latest version is more stable.

I have not encountered any scalability issues.

Technical support is good.

We use different solutions because not all systems comply with all regulations.

Initial setup complexity depends on the user’s needs; if the requirement from the client can use the standard setup, then the implementation will be straightforward, but if there are many requirements that cannot use the standard setup, then setup and customization will be complex.

Oracle PeopleSoft HCM is one of the most expensive systems in the HCM area, so if the organization has budget limitations, then I would not recommend this system.

Before choosing this product, I did not evaluate other options. It was a management decision.

If the organization has a sufficient budget and wants to manage talent and support business objectives, then this is the answer.

I find that the user interface is very comfortable and convenient to use. It's pretty intuitive for what I need to do.

Because the UI is to easy to use, it makes our work processes flow more efficiently, which, of course, impacts cost and time savings.

There are some small things I'd like changing, but the big thing that needs work is their technical support. They're really lacking in terms of timely responses to our trouble tickets.

I've used it for about four years.

We don't have issues deploying it.

It's a mission-critical application for us, and we've found that it has the stability that we need. We haven't really had issues with instability.

We've had to do some scaling, and it's been able to handle the additional workload. We've had no issues with the inability to scale the solution for us.

7/10 - Just responsiveness tends to be an issue. They seem to be knowledgeable once we can get the involvement needed.

There's always room for improvement, but we're overall happy with the solution.

The allocation tool is probably the most valuable feature for us in PeopleSoft. With it, we can schedule it to run overnight and then find out what happened in the morning. Previously, everything had to be kicked off manually, and now we can just schedule a batch to run overnight. I don't have to actually run it because I just verify it.

There are definitely time savings and greater efficiency. We had a manual consolidation process, and when we updated to 9.1, we used that delivered process as well. I think over time, we're adopting more and more of what's delivered instead of the workarounds.

I know we're looking at the cloud, and I think we're tying to become more progressive, but I think that's just a cultural thing where it might be a little slower for a company like ours in that we're very concerned about security. Our company is in a paradigm switch where we were the quiet company, but now we're trying to become more outward-facing. We're doing more spots for, like, hosting the NCAA, advertising, and things like that. So I think they're pushing the solution out and trying to see how we feel, and I think culturally it's going to be a little slower for us. It's just a comfort level that we don't have yet have with PeopleSoft in cloud.

But as for specific features, I'd like to see integration of chart-fill requests so that I don't have to put it on a shared point and so it's readily available for a new account. I'd also like to see Financial Close Management sit on top of PeopleSoft instead of as a separate Oracle product.

We use the allocation tool and have pretty intense allocations, so that works pretty well for us. Previous to upgrading to 9.1, we had a lot of customization. When we did that upgrade, we took as much customization out of that process, and now we're just using the delivered solution.

We sell products, are there seems to be screen after screen after screen of data, such as attributes. We don't really mine the data, so there's no use for us to have all that information upon deployment.

We don't have stability issues with PeopleSoft itself but with the feeds coming into it. I don't know whether those stem from the source systems or not. Also, sometimes there are slow-downs, but that's generally due to server issues and not just PeopleSoft.

There have been no issues growing it, adding more users, more licenses, or more seats.

We had what I thought was a simply question about our consolidation process, but to ask Oracle support how to troubleshoot that was really difficult. They want you to build your whole system a demo environment; that's a lot of work just to answer what I think is a relatively simple question.

I usually Google issues and solutions, but to actually go to the support site, and I haven't had a lot of experience with that, but the back and forth seemed like they were asking a lot of really broad information and trying to scale it down.

I wasn't part of the team that originally implemented it, but I was involved in upgrades. I think it was extremely difficult. I wasn't on the project, but I was there when they needed me, and inserted me where they needed me. We hired IBM to help us do that upgrade, and I think there were a lot of pain points. It was kind of a two- or three-year process. I think there was good and bad, but not perfect, but it was difficult.

You have to be flexible and open to ideas and know that it's not going to be a perfect solution. This isn't a reflection, I think, of Oracle or, in our case, IBM, our contractor. They were just the experts we brought in to help us.

We love the General Ledger feature. It does what we need it to do -- financial reports of accounts payable, T&O, and T&E. I'm not called at 2 am to put out a fire anymore. And for me, the stability is extremely important. It's important that it's reliable, up, and available for clients when they need.

So many organizations are using it that we didn't have to develop something in-house. PeopleSoft has been around for a long time, and we bought it because it's a credible product. We didn't have to spend the money to build something ourselves that has all the functionalities that it already has. It does everything we need it to do.

We've had to build all our data warehouses and datamarts in order for PeopleSoft to do the detailed reporting that we need. I really wish we didn't have to do that. I think that if PeopleSoft had more detailed reporting we wouldn't have to do all this work. That's the real pain point for me, especially since we have to provide support for all of it. It's not a part of PeopleSoft, so we've had to create a whole other piece that connected.

We've had it for fifteen or twenty years. The clients love it. It's very easy to use.

We've had no issues with deploying it.

It've very stable and we've had no issues with instability.

Scalable is good now, and the team knows how to support it as we grow.

We had a large vendor team help us with the initial setup, and then I helped my team with the transition, making sure we were trained and ready to support it. But I didn't physically move code or anything like that myself.

We actually started the project for initial setup about five times because the clients wanted everything. We asked for specific functionalities because it really can do anything, but you can't just have the entire world. So the vendor came in with a solution, and we went with it. But the vendor team was huge and costly, which we can't have going forward.

We're hoping now as we're upgrading to the next version that we'll have our own in-house resources to do the work ourselves. But the PeopleSoft setup was so big with so many other pieces we needed for reporting that it took a long time to design with many parts that were extras in the downstream part of the system.

In fact, the integration with all the interfaces in our system was probably the hardest thing. We have over 80 different systems that feed our PeopleSoft application with around seven different formats of the general ledger. So from changing the old, very cryptic systems to the new layout has been a challenge. We've bit the bullet on doing that, though, and it's a lot to maintain.

We used a mixed implementation team of people from IBM, Infosys, and our in-house team.

It's good and we're pretty satisfied with it. Make sure you go with the latest version of PeopleSoft, but also make sure you plan and have the right people and resources trained to know the system. If you're new, get a demo and have a plan.

The SOAP and REST features are the most valuable features. What I like is that we can have multiple web services created and multiple consumers can use them together without any interruption or downtime. It helps us to have a very reusable kind of environment where we can have a single service that can be reused from multiple sources.

I'd like to have a dashboard on a mobile app where I can check the health of all the servers and middleware, where I can get alert notifications if there are any critical services going or not going up at all.

I also think it needs to be a little bit more robust as we have faced some issues such as thread counts with stuck threads. These issues came up basically because of the huge volume of data transactions, so if something could be enhanced so as to make it capable of handling more data, that would be good.

There are load also issues with OSB, and it doesn't provide logs. What this means is that I cannot go and check what happened to my incoming or outgoing transactions.

We've been using it for more than two years.

We haven't had issues with deployment.

It is a stable right now from what we have experienced so far.

It is good from a scalability perspective. It could have a different kind of feature such as OSB so that data can be consumed from it directly from the consumer or from an IPA gateway.

I have not experienced many issues requiring me to contact technical support.

Once you get the feel of it and learn how to use it, the ease of use and performance are the most valuable features. It processes everything very quickly.

Because it's so fast, we're able to work much more efficiently.

It needs a better interface on the financial side because there have been more improvements to the RMS interface than the financial one.

We've been using it at the organization since 1996.

We've had no issues with deployment.

It's been stable. We've had no issues with instability.

As far as I know, we haven't had issues with scalability.

I'm a test engineer, so I don't deal with Oracle technical support. If I find anything that's not working, I hand it over to our developers. But I haven't hear any issues they've had with technical support not providing answers.

It takes some time in order to set it up and to implement, make changes, and deploy it to our users.

How you use it will depend on the size of your organization and the number of transactions you do on your backend. If you have a small shop, there are other more suitable ERP solutions on the market that you can implement quicker.

Our end process is going through multiple procure-to-pay systems. So the most valuable feature of PeopleSoft is the collaboration that it provides between our procurement/purchasing and accounts payable.

Because it links our procurement/purchasing and accounts payable, we have a single way to track transactions.

PCM, the procurement side, is weak and is far from the strongest product. It leaves a lot to be desired with the integration of the contract management module along with the purchasing. There isn't really a strong way to allow folks within the organization view access to contracts without bringing that down to low-level security. It's just not flexible.

I've been with my current company for five years, and we implemented v9.2 in January 2014. Personally, I've used it for a number of years.

We've haven't had issues deploying it.

With our current implementation, we have some instability. But, I believe that that's something we'll overcome over time. Otherwise, it a mostly stable product, though there is still room for improvement in many areas.

As we've acquired companies, it's certainly been scalable for what we do with it. We've been able to integrate all of the pieces of the implementations back to new parts of our organization.

7/10 - Response time sometimes on what we consider critical issues to us isn't as fast as we'd like, especially with v9.2. We went in flat with 9.2.0, so there were a lot of bugs and things that we didn't realize were bugs until we called Oracle. Sometimes it was days waiting to find out if the issues we had had something to do to our system or whether it was with the product.