The cost of implementing SAP or MS is several times higher than its real value

It’s millions of dollars, it’s just that you weren’t told everything.Apart from the actual implementation, in case of Microsoft, you will be imposed to pay licenses for all parallel software. For your comparison — the cost of our implementation.

Or maybe you were offered the attractive «special version for small business» for some «funny money» of € 100 000? The money is better spent on a typewriter — the functionality will not yield much, and the cost and terms of «implementation» will be drastically better.
«Special Versions» are marketing mixes: first you pay little, and afterwards, when you bump into limited functionality (which is inevitable, because that’s what the «special editions» are designed for), you are offered to buy the next «unit» for a hatful of money.
And add a separate budget for the «implementation». In general, the miser pays twice.

Functionality: we have it more powerful

Especially in such critical units as logistics and finance.
We avoid all bubble schemes with separate purchases of additional «units»: paying for a license guarantees you the full range of functional solutions without any restrictions. Including the future solutions- the system is constantly evolving, updates are supplied free of charge.

The implementation timeframe: we work 2-3 times faster

Does your company have three or four extra years to halt, while yesterday’s students in white shirts from official partners of SAP or Microsoft feed your business into the hoary perceptions the vendors’ headquarters have of the «best practices»?
Halt is a step back, don’t turn off the business.
The full implementation of Ultima ERP will take from four months to a year of time.
According to the open industry analytics, neither SAP nor Microsoft can boast a project shorter than a year and a half, and these are the most typical cases.
Imagine what happens if your business processes turn out to be more complicated than those of a tobacco stall.

The cost of support and flexibility of the system

Ultima ERP reflects the best-organized business processes the Customer has, while SAP and others consider the solutions once realized in their practice perfect. Change — rather no, than yes. Or it will cost you a fortune.

Imagine the situation: Henry Ford invents the chain conveyor and decides to buy the ERP-system right after that. A manager, lets say from SAP, arrives to his office and Henry describes the needs of his business. What answer does he hear: «Henry, with all our respect to you, you talk nonsense. What chain conveyor? Three hundred years of our successful implementations conclusively proved the superiority of the best manufacturing practice in the format of handicraft factory and water wheel.»

There is no need to specify the address where the representatives will get immediately sent. Imagine a similar scene with, lets say, Sam Walton or Sergey Brin.

In reality, the mantra about the «best practice» intends to cover the system falls of the architecture and crucial inefficiency of the two-level implementation/support scheme. The implementation is carried out by the local partner.

Due to poorly designed architecture of the same SAP (which can be easily understood as they have been suffering from it for almost forty years — imagine the hardware and the software back then, for details, please join the brief insight into SAP architecture) the capabilities of the local partner are not sufficient for optimal implementation of the customers’ business processes. That’s why they have to involve the German headquarters to consult their system programmers.

Now try to imagine the time and cost expenses of the scheme, when your employees explain the situation to the consultants of the partner company (the qualification of these people is another matter), then the needs are outspoken to the German programmers, and the consultants get explained how dumb they actually are and how your business has to work.

The cycle repeats itself several times with constant effect of whisper down the lane. As a result, you get some feedback. There probably is no need to explain the use of the word «some», as you really do get something totally irrational, that needs lots of time and money, and that will never ever meet your expectations.
That’s why it’s much easier for the local partners to feed you bum steer about the «best practice» and to demand changes from your business to fit the pattern, rather than do their job — satisfy the needs of the customer.
By the way, we are not against the changes, and we admit, that in most cases the introduction of Ultima ERP leads to changes. But in this case the needs for innovation are justified by the considerations of business efficiency and maximizing the profits we come to during the re-engineering, they are not imposed by the limitations of our product.

What do we offer? Modern, designed using the latest technologies, constantly up-to-date and running system. The architecture that has taken into account the mistakes of the predecessors. We are a close-knit team of implementators in constant exchange of information with our system programmers.In other words — fast, cheap and exactly what you needed.

The solution from an eminent brand is much more important for the IT- director than for the company

It’s very clear. Giant budget = Giant kickback.
IT-Director benefits from it in terms of his personal career («I integrated SAP»), as the implementation time is very long, it is an additional guarantee of highly paid not-working in the following few years. Interests of the company are not taken into account, a «reliable brand» remains a brilliant argument, but we all know what is what. Karamzin put it clear long time ago.

By the way, about the brand. MS Dynamics AX (former Axapta), which is one of the major companies in Russia, has an interest slightly different from zero in all developed markets. On one hand, it proves the level of the sales and lobby of MS in Russia, but on the other it clarifies the real value of the «brand» in the market of ERP systems.

Note. All of the above is applied to the needs of our target audience — medium and big Russian companies.
To be specific we mean the companies with 15 — 20 thousand employees, whose activities lay mainly in trade and service sectors, and for whom e-sales are an essential part of the business.
Multinational corporations, multi-giants should clearly stick to SAP. For now. But if you are not Siemens, Sony, or, at worst, Severstal – you are welcome.
When you grow into an international imperialism tycoon, you won’t have to change accounting system. After all, we are not sitting idly either.