In a recent post, Why GP, NAV, and AX Manufacturers Data Isn’t AI (Artificial Intelligence) Ready, I commented, “Going live on a new ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) platform without clean data is like spending a fortune on a new supercar and pouring sugar and sawdust into the gas tank.” While clean data is critical for every type of business, I like to talk about manufacturing, so let’s focus on it and define the difference between clean data and CLEAN data. First, the data sets must be unified before any accurate data cleansing operation can start. Imagine if you cleaned your ERP data but left your CRM data out of the process. You will not likely get far in “passing” your data quality test. Once you have your data unified, my new definition of CLEAN data is based on DataGence’s proprietary, six-pillar data paradigm VESPAS: Validate – ensure every piece of data is legitimate and accurate. Enrich – add layers of relevant information to existing records. Standardize – address the challenges of data from disparate sources. Purify – ensures data integrity (removal of duplicate records) and alignment with known entities for master data (ex: Companies to Contacts). Authorize – ensure regulatory compliance, privacy, and user preference compliance. Segment – transform quality data into a strategic tool for marketing and sales. Each of the six clean data pillars is crucial in refining raw data into a goldmine of actionable insights. Consider a manufacturing company that produces automotive parts for a practical example of the VESPAS data cleaning model. A master data inventory file for this company would include detailed records of parts, suppliers, customers, and transactions. Here is how the VESPAS framework could be crucial: Validation: Ensuring that each part number, supplier ID, or customer contact information in the master data file is accurate and legitimate. This prevents errors in ordering, inventory tracking, and customer communication. Enrichment: Adding information layers could include historical purchase data for parts, supplier performance ratings, or customer buying preferences. This enriched data helps make informed decisions about inventory management, supplier negotiations, and targeted marketing. Standardization: Data comes from various sources, such as different departments, suppliers, or market research. Standardization ensures that all data conforms to a uniform format, making it easier to integrate, analyze, and utilize across the company. Purification: This involves matching and removing duplicate data, aligning data with known entities, and ensuring that only relevant and necessary data is retained. For instance, obsolete part numbers or inactive suppliers can be removed from the master file to keep the data current and manageable. Authorization: Ensuring that the data complies with industry regulations, privacy laws, and user preferences. This is critical for avoiding legal issues and maintaining customer trust, especially when handling sensitive information. Segmentation: Using high-quality data to segment customers based on buying patterns, geographic location, or industry type. This allows for more effective marketing campaigns and sales strategies and identifies new market opportunities or areas for expansion. By applying the VESPAS framework to their master data inventory file, the manufacturing company can maintain a clean, organized, and actionable dataset. This leads to better business intelligence, operational efficiency, and a competitive edge in the market. Don’t forget that using Excel templates to migrate ERP data is not an AI-ready data strategy; it only invites costly change orders. Let's talk about your ERP data migration strategy. HandsFree ERP We are dedicated to ERP project excellence with experienced people, innovative processes, and innovative productivity tools like GYDE365-Discover. Experience - over one hundred years of combined experience selecting and implementing strategic ERP platforms.

Going live on a new ERP platform without clean data is like spending a fortune on a new supercar and pouring sugar and sawdust into the gas tank.

Plan Your Dynamics GP Future with GYDE365-Discover

I recently found myself engrossed in yet another white paper, this one promising to reveal the secrets of successful ERP software implementation. As I delved into the document penned by respected ERP experts, I asked: Did I gain any new insights? Did I find any valuable takeaways? The answer, unfortunately, was a resounding no. Like countless others I’ve read, this white paper echoed the same advice circulating in the ERP community for years. It was reminiscent of the numerous “Top XYZ” lists that claim to hold the keys to ERP project success. Yet, ERP implementations fail alarmingly despite the abundance of advice available with a simple Google search. So, what constitutes an ERP project failure? If a project fails to meet three fundamental criteria for success, it should be classified as a challenged or failed project. These criteria are: On-time delivery On-budget delivery  On-spec delivery With so much expert advice readily available, why do ERP implementations continue to stumble? In my experience, the advice offered is often academic, rehashing the same guidance that has previously led to significant cost and time overruns and failure to deliver the promised functionality. When I peruse this advice, I find nothing innovative or practical. Generic, oft-repeated academic guidance is abundant, but there is a shortage of helpful tips you can immediately apply to your project to make a meaningful impact. Even more frustrating is when this unhelpful advice is hidden behind paywalls, requiring you to shell out hundreds or thousands of dollars. And let’s not forget the consulting and implementation firms that charge exorbitant fees only to lead projects to repetitive failures. Interestingly, I'm met with enthusiastic agreement whenever I highlight these issues in speaking sessions or during consultations with individual teams. It seems everyone has firsthand or secondhand knowledge of how these projects fail. Yet, no one seems willing to challenge the status quo as the same flawed processes are used repeatedly. In conclusion, the ERP implementation landscape is in dire need of a shake-up. We must move away from regurgitated academic advice and towards practical, actionable strategies that can drive project success. Only then can we hope to improve the success rate of ERP implementations.

I have seen social media posts touting the eight modes of manufacturing that Microsoft Dynamics Business Central (BC) is approved for.  Here is the list: Job Shop Manufacturing Repetitive Job Shop Manufacturing Make-to-Order Manufacturing Configure-to-Order Manufacturing Make-to-Stock Manufacturing Process Manufacturing Engineer-to-Order Manufacturing Mixed Mode Manufacturing BC is an excellent ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) platform when implemented in the right company. However, my thirty years of selecting, implementing, and fixing ERP manufacturing software gave me pause about this claim. Let us examine that “8-Modes” claim with a real-life, data-driven example. I recently had the opportunity to consult with a company that builds large, extraordinarily complex machines engineered to order, combining a mix of standard equipment, unique components, and process manufacturing. Once completed, the business installs and services its machinery. The business posed the following question, “We are implementing Microsoft Dynamics Business Central (BC), but some recently hired resources are questioning if that is the right solution for us.” After asking a couple of detailed questions regarding their manufacturing requirements, I knew immediately that they were headed for severe challenges with their implementation. The challenge, of course, was how to quantify that analysis so that team members already invested in the BC implementation would have fact-based, data-driven analytics on which to base their decisions. To deliver that highly granular, non-biased, data-driven analysis, I turned to a GYDE365-Discover session. In a matter of days, not weeks or months, I delivered a detailed analysis to the business comparing the fit of core BC functionality against the critical manufacturing requirements. In a detailed report of more than one hundred pages of thorough analysis, here was the key takeaway: Company-wide, for critical must-have requirements, BC was a fit for 52% of those requirements. Of course, the devil is in the details, but drilling down into the missing requirements, it was easy to see that BC, with its current feature set, is a sub-optimal fit. By contrast, the fit of Microsoft Dynamics Finance and Supply Chain Management (FSCM) was evaluated at 89%. Suppose you need a fact-based, unbiased analysis of your manufacturing operations requirements compared to BC, FSCM, and any other ERP solution. In that case, a GYDE365-Discover report is the best methodology I have seen. Let us show you how and why with data, not opinions. To learn more, go to HandsFreeTools.Biz The graphic below is for reference only. It is part of the LinkedIn post referenced in the blog.

There are many reasons why you may be outgrowing your Microsoft Dynamics GP software. However, primarily it falls into either a functional or a technological issue. Understanding those issues in the context of what the Dynamics GP solution is intended to deliver can help you decide if it’s time to “get fitted” for a more robust solution.  As a product, Microsoft Dynamics GP is quickly becoming the “Grand Old Dame” in the Microsoft ERP fleet. Hugely successful, loved by many, and at one point supported by the greatest partner channel in the world, the product is showing its age as it winds down its career as a strategic solution. For companies that currently use Microsoft Dynamics GP but are outgrowing its capabilities, there are many questions regarding potential solutions and options: Am I using the software to its full potential? Is there a third party solution that fixes my issues? Am I working with the right partner to understand and fix my problems? WHAT ARE MY BEST OPTIONS IF I NEED TO MAKE A CHANGE? Of course the answers are often complex and intertwined, but what if you just want a “rough idea” of whether or not it is time to make a change? In my years of evaluating ERP solutions and extensive experience with larger and more sophisticate GP implementations, I have found that a useful method of deciding if it is time to consider a new potential solution is the “Rule of Multies.” Each of the following “Multies” that you check off on your current functional requirements list is a clear indicator that it may be time to consider a change: Multi Company Multi LOB (line of business) Multi Location Multi Currency Multi Country Multi Language Multi-Dimensional Inventory or Financials The more line items you check off the more certain it becomes that GP may not be your best long term solution. Multi-company and multi-location can go hand in hand but do not necessarily have to as in the case of a business that runs multiple lines of business or companies out of the same location. Especially noteworthy is the case where there are multiple production facilities or warehouses that create a supply chain. Multiple currency, country, and language often go hand in hand but of course do not have to. Business regulations and tax considerations are usually found to be critical in companies with these requirements. Not as straightforward or common is the requirement for multidimensional inventory or financial reporting. In many ways I find these to be the most challenging of the “Multies” to understand and therefore the most difficult to implement. More challenging to analyze are the questions of partner and direction. Having taken customers from their existing GP solution to other, more complete Microsoft Dynamics ERP packages solutions, I know many of the technical, functional, and even emotional pitfalls associated with that discussion. Yes, emotional. If you make your living selling hand saws, it becomes an issue when your customers are shown a chain saw. Not to mention that your current GP dealer does not know or won’t tell you the potentially most compelling advantage of speaking to a partner that has the capability to analyze your existing GP implementation and discuss scaling it appropriately. Learn more about Microsoft-Funded GYDE365-Discover Program for Companies utilizing Great Plains (GP)

Many manufacturing companies that use Microsoft Dynamics GP are considering upgrading to Dynamics 365 Business Central (BC). However, this decision is not as simple as it may seem. Here are some reasons why: GP was not designed for manufacturing. GP was initially a financial and accounting solution, and third-party vendors added its inventory and manufacturing modules later. This means that GP may not have met the specific needs of many manufacturers, and they may have had to compromise or customize their systems. GP partners may not have manufacturing expertise. The Dynamics GP partner network is well-known and respected but may not have a strong focus or experience in selecting and implementing manufacturing ERP solutions. This could affect their ability to advise and support GP manufacturers who want to migrate to BC. BC may not be the best fit for all manufacturers. BC is a modern and cloud-based ERP solution that offers many benefits, but it may not suit every type of manufacturing. For example, BC may not have the functionality or flexibility to handle complex or multi-mode manufacturing scenarios, such as engineer-to-order, make-to-order, or mixed-mode. With those facts as a backdrop, here are some recent examples of why a comprehensive assessment is even more critical for Dynamics GP manufacturing companies contemplating a move to BC: Summit North America Circle of Excellence Feedback: I was the lead HandsFree consultant in the ERP Circle of Excellence (COE) Lounge at Summit NA. The COE was set up to offer ERP project advice to anyone with questions regarding their project, regardless of its stage or status. In that setting, I was approached by several former GP manufacturing companies regretting their selection of BC. In each case, I was able to diagnose the issue with one straightforward question: what type of manufacturing does your company do? For example: Assemble to Order, Process, or Engineer to Order (ETO). User Group Poll: I reviewed a recent poll conducted by a Dynamics User Group that asked GP companies what direction they were planning for their post-GP ERP solution. Two results stood out to me: Comprehensive Discovery Assessment: There is an engineering concept for looking at problems without an exact solution (investigating phenomena at the extrema). An ERP software selection is a problem without a clear answer. However, I gained many insights by investigating the fit of BC for an enterprise, multi-mode manufacturing company. That corresponding fit-gap analysis of critical functional capabilities was approximately 52 percent for BC and 88 percent for F&SCM. GP manufacturers should take advantage of the Microsoft-sponsored discovery projects to avoid these pitfalls. This free and comprehensive assessment tool helps you evaluate your current and future ERP needs, compare different Microsoft Dynamics solutions, and identify the best fit for your manufacturing business. Our team trusts the GYDE365-Discover Survey because a structured assessment tool helps GP users assess their current state and the feasibility of next steps. Such a tool identifies critical elements in their planning such as: What type of manufacturing do you do? Different manufacturing modes have additional ERP requirements. For example, discrete manufacturers need to manage bills of materials, routings, and work orders, while process manufacturers need to handle formulas, recipes, and batches. What are your critical functional capabilities? Every manufacturing business has its unique processes and challenges. You need an ERP solution that can support your core operations and enable you to improve your efficiency, quality, and profitability. Providing a trusted fit-gap analysis requires an assessment of all relevant capabilities of the ERPs you are considering. What are your ERP project goals and expectations? Moving to a new ERP solution is a significant undertaking that requires careful planning and execution. You need to have a clear vision of what you want to achieve and how you will measure your success. A structured assessment helps your executives set your ERP project goals and expectations and align them with the best ERP solution. Don’t make the mistake of choosing the wrong ERP solution for your manufacturing business. Take the time to assess, analyze, and evaluate which Dynamics 365 solution is right for your organization’s future. This blog was featured on MS Dynamics World. GP manufacturers should take advantage of the Microsoft-sponsored GYDE365-Discover Survey to avoid these pitfalls. This free and comprehensive assessment tool helps you evaluate your current and future ERP needs, compare different Microsoft Dynamics solutions, and identify the best fit for your manufacturing business. Learn more about Microsoft-Funded GYDE365-Discover Program for Companies utilizing Great Plains (GP) HandsFree ERP We are dedicated to ERP project excellence with experienced people, innovative processes, and innovative productivity tools like GYDE365-Discover. Experience - over one hundred years of combined experience selecting and implementing strategic ERP platforms.

Authors Note: While focused on manufacturing companies, the following advice will be successful for any company planning to move from Microsoft Dynamics GP (formerly Great Plains) to a modern cloud-based ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) platform, considering Microsoft Dynamics BC (Business Central) as an option. I have been hearing troubling messages from Microsoft Dynamics GP manufacturing customers concerning their evaluation of modern cloud-based ERP platforms, specifically: Our GP to Business Central (BC) project is going poorly. During our evaluation of BC, we were unaware that a more feature-rich ERP solution is available from Microsoft Dynamics FSCM (Finance and Supply Chain Management). Working with GP manufacturing companies to evaluate, implement, and fix ERP software projects has given me unique insights into the common problems associated with these projects. Historically, there is a unique set of issues related to GP manufacturing implementations: GP was not initially designed as a manufacturing solution. At best, the bolted-on manufacturing functionality fits a specific and narrow range of manufacturing companies. Manufacturing knowledge in the broader GP implementation partner channel varies wildly. More sophisticated and enterprise-ready manufacturing companies choose BC without evaluating or, in some cases, even being aware of Microsoft Dynamics FSCM, a more feature-rich solution for enterprise manufacturing. Now that Microsoft and Microsoft partners are heavily marketing to GP customers that they should upgrade to BC, I am seeing similar issues emerge: BC has better manufacturing capabilities than GP but is still woefully short on critical functionality for many manufacturing companies. BC is being force-fed to GP manufacturing customers by partners that do not have the manufacturing expertise to differentiate nuanced or significant differences between manufacturing companies. Since 2002, when Microsoft acquired Axapta, I have advised multiple GP manufacturing clients on how to move to Microsoft Dynamics Axapta (AX), Finance and Operations (F&O), and now Finance and Supply Chain Management (FSCM). In every instance, I had to overcome fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) on the prospects' side because of the cost and complexity of moving from GP to a proper enterprise manufacturing solution such as AX, F&O, or FSCM instead of a less complex, cheaper solution. As an aside, I have also steered startup companies away from GP or QuickBooks because of the cost of implementing a “startup” ERP solution missing critical functionality. My favorite quote from a startup client that I guided away from a QuickBooks implementation to F&O was, “We decided to go in this direction because of who we want to be, not who we are today.” How did I overcome the clients' fear of implementing enterprise-sized manufacturing ERP solutions for a fraction of the time and cost quoted by “Big Important Microsoft Partners (BIMPs)? Utilizing my implementation shortcuts, I learned over thirty-plus years of selecting, implementing, and fixing ERP projects. With a degree in Industrial Engineering, Operations Research (IEOR), I focus on constant process improvement. Implementing ERP is a process where historically little thought has been given to how to cut time and costs and improve productivity. So, how did I advise GP manufacturing companies to implement enterprise-level manufacturing software fastest and most cost-effectively? Here was my essential advice for an accelerated implementation methodology that helped deliver those projects successfully: Primarily, tell me the two to three things that make your company unique. I understand that every company is special, but the convoluted business process workarounds you have developed over the years are not “special;” they are just unproductive. Second, list everything your current system does that you need to run your business effectively and successfully. This describes the functionality required for a minimally viable system. Building this list takes a fraction of the time explaining the ideal system, which weighs down many traditional requirements-gathering processes. Third, I need a list of the reports you need to run the business daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, and annual and how they are created. Then, I want a list of the aspirational reports you always wanted to be more efficient but deemed too complex or impossible to develop on a timely basis. Finally, organize an “ERP SWAT Team” to run your business with a vanilla version of the targeted ERP software as quickly as possible. The SWAT team can comprise as little as one to two corporate experts from the business and a true software architect. In a six-to-eight-week period, the knowledge gained by the ERP SWAT Team speeds up the project's implementation. The details of this approach are the subject of a separate post. I used these steps to replace the tried and failed methodologies for endless requirements gathering, design of the perfect system, and change management plan detailing in painful detail how to move from your current system to ERP nirvana. Question: how much time and budget did those classic steps waste in your last ERP project? My guess is 40 to 60 percent before any user has seen what the new software looks like. A real-life example of the time and money spent by a recent single-location engineer-to-order (ETO) FSCM project implementation project. The client spent over a year and seven hundred thousand dollars on a detailed requirements study. The project is currently in the classic “search for the guilty” phase because multiple critical requirements were missed and not uncovered until late in the project. This reminds me of a famous rant by Lewis Black, one of my favorite comedians, “Seven hundred thousand!? What were they planning? Their own space program”? But here is the irony of this successful approach that I have used to move companies from GP to AX, F&O, and now FSCM at a fraction of the time and budget quoted by traditional ERP partners. For many companies that have used conventional project methodologies for moving to a new ERP platform, the simplicity of my approach seems too risky and, therefore, this approach is a complicated and sometimes impossible sell. That hard sell no longer exists for me with the introduction of GYDE365 by SEER365. GYDE365 is a cloud-based platform that speeds the process of selecting and implementing a new ERP platform by as much as thirty percent, and that can be incorporated into the accelerated implementation methodology that I have had so much success with. Finally, a tool is available to me that allows me to guide customers in their ERP selection and implementation efficiently and cost-effectively while giving them the comfort needed to embrace my approach. Here is a quick example of how the GYDE365 platform aligns with my methodology for delivering faster, better, and more cost-effective ERP selection, upgrade, and implementation projects. A GYDE365-Discover Session is a fast and straightforward way to gather your company’s business requirements, which are the basis for any successful ERP project. GYDE365-Discover Sessions have been found to save up to sixty percent of the time and money spent on standard requirements-gathering projects. I can attest to instances where it would have saved up to ninety percent. A GYDE365-Discover Session allows customers to rank their requirements utilizing a “Moscow Rating” system that classifies requirements as: M – Must have. These are top-priority requirements. A ‘must have’ feature is a non-negotiable requirement that a business solution must have. Software customization for a must-have would require careful analysis and approval. S – Should have. These could add significant value but are not vital. They differ from ‘must-haves’ by the availability of a workaround; for example, it may be something that you do not currently do, or it may be achieved through a change in process. Depending on time and budget, a should-have customization would require careful analysis and approval. C – Could have. A ‘could have’ requirement is a 'nice to have' that would have a negligible impact if left out. It is this lower impact that differentiates it from the ‘should-haves.’ This would include a feature that you would like to consider for the future. It is unlikely that a customization would be approved in this area. W – Will not have. A’ will not have’ feature is not a priority or a current requirement. ‘Will not have’ does not mean a complete rejection of something; it is not required in a solution based on your current business needs and those for the near future.

Insite by HandsFree named to Cloud Wars Shortlist!