From the Sage MAS Team

[#1]

Whether it's a PR stunt or a concerted attempt to minimize wrap rage during this holiday gift giving season, amazon.com has announced frustration-free packaging options for several items they sell. Instead of product showing up in plastic blister-pack, amazon.com is providing the brand new product in a standalone box. No over-pack box. No wire-wraps, no plastic to cut. And no bleeding fingers.

Clearly, amazon.com has heard the voice of their customers. While they admit this is a multi-year rollout and it will take some time for more products to be made available with this shipping option, it's interesting to see amazon.com taking on a whale of an initiative like this one. Attempting to address a problem that clearly annoys their customers is a step in the right direction. And as a result, I'm confident they'll see their Net Promoter Score increase as a direct result.

And speaking of Net Promoter... Net Promoter Score (NPS) is something we take very seriously at Sage. Put simply, NPS is a litmus check on customer perception of one's organization. Within the Sage MAS business, we reach out to our entire customer base in "waves" over the course of the year. By year end, we will have touched each and every one of our (known) customers. During which time, a single (critical) question is asked, "Would you recommend us to a friend or colleague?"

So how are we doing?

Sage MAS 90 and 200 is up 9% in the latest wave. This is the highest satisfaction result we have recorded since we started measuring NPS back in February 2005. Sage MAS 500 is up 21% in the latest wave, reaching its second highest satisfaction result in the last two years; forth highest result ever.

So the stats say we must be making improvement. But what do you think? Feel free to leave your comments below, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Message Edited by morps on 11-04-2008 02:01 PM

[#2]

One thing I can see in their benefit is that the fancy packaging allows the manufacturer to do some in-store marketing.  With an online site, you don't need the fancy in-store marketing, so you can bypass that and just ship the item in a plain box.  In the end, the consumer just tosses the box anyway.

The manufacturer makes out because they can spend less money packaging the item.  Amazon.com makes out because they are surely getting the item to resell for less.  Plus they get to put their own logo on the box.  And like you said, the consumer wins because they get the hassle-free packaging.

The end result is a win-win-win scenario.  This is clearly an example of someone thinking outside the box and asking "How can we cut costs, and still win over the consumer?"  All companies, Sage included, should continuously strive to do some of that innovative thinking.

Dawn

[#3]

"So how are we doing?"

I consider myself a "power-user".  We are a wholesale distributor using GL, AR, AP, SO, PO, IM, BR, RM, VI, Custom, and EBM.  I'm still on 4.05 because every time we are about to upgrade we hear of a problem that would be a show-stopper to the way we do business.  I've been using MAS since the early 90's and brought it into my current company over 10 years ago. 

It has been my experience over the past 4 or 5 years that Sage is more concerned about selling it's product than continuing to provide a world-class system. I get weekly announcements for spending more money on training, but hardly a peep about identified problems, work-arounds, and pending resolutions.  I realize the complexities of platforms and systems that you have to accomodate, but MAS lacks even the most basic of coordinated design functions.  Just try finding the "print form" check box on a PO screen, SO screen, SO invoice, etc.  Don't you think they should all be in the same place?  It is evident that AP and AR designers have not worked together for a consistent interface.

I wonder when was the last time your designers actually spent time with real end-users that are working your system to it's capacity and seeing how the real world works.  I've been on system design teams and seen how they can build something that seems right theoretically.  I've seen that be very different that how processes actually occur.  Many issues that I've heard about result in a "Working as designed" answer. The problem is the design is wrong and nobody is assuming responsibility for that.

Sagetalk seemed to have continuing stories of problems that had to be self-diagnosed and self-solved.  If Sage people were assisting, I was never aware of it.  I think it is great to see Sage employees actively participating is some of the discussions going on here.

Perhaps your approval ratings are going up.  I'm not on the latest and greatest version yet.  I'm sure there will be new features that I'm very happy to see, but I suspect it will also cause some gnashing of teeth.    We have a multitude of items with an inch symbol ("); yes, the dreaded double-quote.  Since version 4, we lost the capability to search our descriptions where that character was included.  I finally had to purchase an extended solution so we could respond to our customers, and that increased my annual maintence fee by several hundred dollars - just do continue doing what we did on 3.31 and 3.71.  I did receive a 50% discount on the cost since we lost functionality, but where is the logic in removing this functionality in the first place?  What will it cost me in real productivity to gain the latest "neat tricks" the programmers came up with that don't really deliver to my bottom line?

I'm only tossing this out because you asked.  We wouldn't be where we are without a solid automated platform, and MAS is that. But I'm the guy at our company that has to pay the price to keep everything running.  On the whole, MAS does a good job but we have a lot of manual processes to make up for design shortfalls.  Given the significant maintenance costs and difficultin in getting support, I question regularly whether it is still the value I believed it to be, and now entertain most software vendors that request an appointment.

You point out that your rating is climbing and that is good and positive.  But how far have you climbed and how far do you have to go?  The Congress of the US can climb almost 40% and that would sound pretty good.  But, they would still be below 50% in their approval rating.

My apologies if this seems like a rant.  That isn't my intent.

[#4]

Spyle,

To comment about the screen differences when you are on 4.05 is a little unfair.  In the whole 4.x re-write Sage is making an effort to make the screens look more similar.  If you were on 4.30, and you looked at the Customer Maintenance and Vendor Maintenance screens side-by-side, you would see how similar they look.  It is true that inventory and purchase order still aren't there yet, however they are coming in the next release.

I will not release Sage of all the blame, however.  I do think they need to continue to spend time with real users and see how those users use the software.  I myself, being a reseller, work with a variety of clients in various industries and see some of the challenges they encounter.  On the plus side, MAS 90/200 is a very open program in terms of what you can do without source code modifications.  (For example you could have had a solution to your double-quote problem without buying an extended solution.)

I would like to see Sage listen to their customers more.  True, they can't put all the features in the world into the software, but the strategic ones will win the most votes with their customers.

Dawn

[#5]

Coming directly from an IT prespective, the way this software is sold and supported is like nothing I have ever seen from a "software" company.  I have little to none accounting background so I have to believe that this model is pretty market centered.  This is most likely ok for small and medium business, but for an enterprise soulution, it would drive the IT department absolutely crazy. 

The real gripe I have is the knowledge base.  It is horrible.  Horrible interface.  Horrible performance.  In most of my situations so far, it has been a total waste of time.  This is where I definately think the "software" company should look at other computer related companies for examples of good solutions.  The KB should not be something that your MAS engineers and programmers do on the side.  As mentioned above, they dont live in the customer world.

[#6]

1. Are you only querying maintenance paying customers on plan? NPS scores from customers paying $$ per year in maintenance should be good, right? Otherwise why would they continue paying maintenance.

It's sort of like asking your Mom whether she loves you.

2.  Every household should own Open-It!

[#7]

Nope. Regardless of whether or not a customer is on a maintenance plan or not, we include them in our NPS efforts. A customer is a customer. NPS is NPS. We ping everyone we have a good contact for with our Net Promotor efforts. If we didn't, I completely agree with you.

[#8]

Hey Mr Migrane

 The real gripe I have is the knowledge base.  It is horrible.  Horrible
interface.  Horrible performance.  In most of my situations so far, it
has been a total waste of time.  This is where I definately think the
"software" company should look at other computer related companies for
examples of good solutions.  The KB should not be something that your
MAS engineers and programmers do on the side.  As mentioned above, they
dont live in the customer world.

So, based on your comment, I have a sinking suspicion I know where your user nickname originated. I wanted to let you know your comment is not only "heard" but it is something we are working on big time. We use the same KB too... I think the technical term for that is, "eating our own dog food." And we too send similar emails around internally -- no, I won't post an example

Here is what I can tell you... for the last few days, myself and a couple of colleagues in Support have been trying to get a video tutorial up onto YouTube which does help out a bit in how to find stuff in the KB. We're in a tug-o-war with YouTube not liking the video codec used by our authoring tool right now, otherwise it would be up there -- and linked to on this blog -- right now.

Update 12 November: "Houston, the eagle has landed" (video is now posted below)

But a how-to video is not enough.

We're actually in the process of rolling out a brand new KB. It is heads and shoulders better than what we have today. That's the good news. The bad news is we still have a way to go in taking it live. Truthfully, we think it can't get here soon enough. But I guess it's like a good wine, and it takes some time. Remember, cheap/fast wines usually just give ya a headache too. So we wanna do this one right. So far so good, but we still have a bit of work to do. 

Message Edited by morps on 11-12-2008 11:28 AM

Message Edited by morps on 11-12-2008 11:29 AM

[#9]

I have always wondered which customers are listened to because non of mine seem to be.  And it seems like everytime I contact Sage Tech support on an issue, I am told that it Works As Designed.  Unfortunately, it isn't Working As Desired for many of my clients.

If we do compare apples to apples in the V4.3 release, yes many of the panels are more consistent in appearance, but many are still lacking consistency.  Some examples - In AR Customer maintenance, you have to abiltiy to assign the next customer number by clicking on the # icon.  This is a nice feature to have.  Where is it at in AP Vendor maintenance which is also in the new framework?

The new primary/secondary grid entry in SO entry and AR invoice entry is VERY nice!!!!!  Users LOVE it.  In the SO entry screens you have the ability to have the grid view in a top/bottom or a side/side view.  Again, VERY nice.  But where is this ability in the AR invoice entry line panel????  It isn't!!!!!

The AR Invoice History Header file has Bill To and Ship To fields for Name,Address, Cit, State, Zip and Country Codes.  However, ONLY the SO module writes to these fields. If you are using the AR module for invoicing, the Bill To information is NOT written to the AR History file.  If you happen to need to reprint an invoice AND the customer master address has been changed, then the NEW address will print on the invoice, NOT the original one.  I have an HVAC client that needs to search AR history by address to determine when they installed a new furnace in a house three owners ago.  The house address hasn't changed, but the customer address has.  Impossible to search AR history for this address.  Works As Designed, Does Not Work as Desired and is not consistent between modules in the new framework!   The fields exist in AR history, why hasn't anyone thought to write the data to it?

As Spyle has noted,  you can no longer search for text contain a ". Why not????  Another WAD with no explanation for the change.  Trick question - What is the difference between " and '' ?  Only the computer knows for sure.  The first is the double quote, the second is two single quotes (apostrophes).  More importantly, you can search for '' (two apostrophes) in the ALE!  I suppose Spyle could have exported all of his descriptions into Excel, performed a find and replace, and imported his descriptions back into MAS, then train all of his staff to use '' (two apostropes) instead of " (quote).  But WHY should he have to?  Again, WAD, not Works As Desired.

V4.3 Sales Order - Client started using the shipping module to enter information during the shipping process.  They also are using a link from the SO order header to their UPS Worldship to pull the ship to addresses over into Worldship thus eliminating the need to maintain a separate database in Worldship.  They LOVE it.  They've taken it a step further by scanning the UPS tracking number back into MAS during the shipping process.  No need to import the tracking numbers back into MAS via VI and they save money by not having to use Starship.  MAS is adding VALUE to their process!!!!!!  Now they want to print packing slips for each carton.  Not a problem I say as I can enable the "Additional Packing Slip" functionality.  But they say not quite as it is printing component lines also (they explode the BOM/Kits on the SO for production assembly).  No problem I say, I'll just add a component UDF to the SO Package Tracking by Item file and then modify the Crystal report to suppress the line if it is a component item.  Whoa Nellie!!!  Can't do this because the UDF and Table maintenance for the SO Package Tracking by Item file is NOT written to the new framework specifications even though the SO module has been in the new framework since the fall of 2005.  Not consistent, but works as designed.  Unfortunately, not as DESIRED!.

The shipping module has the ability to assign shipped items to individual boxes as noted above.  This feature is great as long as you aren't exploding BOM/Kit items on the sales order.  If you are, the component items also need to be assigned to a carton.  For some users, this may not be a major headache, but for one of my clients, it is.  They may have five parent items on an SO that may have five component lines each.  When they open that particular window to assign items to a carton, they may have to wade through 25 component lines to assign the five parent items to a box.  And I might add, the shipping department only sees the parent items as the components are now part of the assembly.  Programmed according to designed, not as user desired.

Bank Reconciliation is another pet peeve.  While it appears to be written in the new framework, was it really?  The last I tried, I could not get UDF's to pull data from the AR cash receipts file, the headers for checks and deposits  (reconcile bank program) could not be clicked to sort ascending/descending as you can in AR or AP, the search grid panel does not remember the last settings used (nor can you save them) and does anyone really search using the column name for row number?  When you print the Bank Reconciliation Register for a certain date and enter 103108 in the date field, MAS does not convert the value entered into a properly formatted date (10/31/08) as it does in nearly every other date field throughout MAS.  Yes, the report does pull the proper information based on this value, but the date that prints on the register is 103108.  Another WAD, not consistent, sloppy coding.  Again, this code was released over three years ago.

I don't want to appear to be a ranting lunatic.  I LOVE the new framework.  It allows us to do SO MUCH more for the client without having to be a programmer.  But these new features also create major headaches as we continue to wait for the rest of the modules to be rewritten.  And while we are waiting ever so patiently for IM, PO and BOM to be released in 2009, we are stymied by the WAD's, the lack of consistency between modules in the new framework and less than stellar QC as exhibited in the sloppy coding.  Yes, strategic decisions have to be made as to what to do next.  But don't forget the tactical details that will really make this product hum and stand head and shoulders above the competition.

[#10]

Wow, I'm just planning to go to 4.3.  Look at all I have to look forward to.

I'm not stressing the difference between a couple of "pre" modules with a couple of "post" modules. At 4.05, the only new framework I have is GL.  However, I would like to add that I've noticed the discrepancies since 3.31. 

I point this out because I've done design, development, and programming work, albeit not on the scale of MAS90.  But, my audience were non-english speaking employees working for the US Government.  I can assure you the last thing I wanted to do was explain why everything was different so I built a system to mirror their manual processes.  Total training time was less than 3 hours and the system was in a production environment for almost 15 years.

It all comes down to the motivation of the design team.  If they truly understand how their software is used and work with the end-uers (the CUSTOMER), most of the problems enumerated above would not be part of the design.

Unfortunately, the industry has conditioned us all to accept buggy software so there is no escaping that, but poor design will not survive the marketplace indefinitely (just look at Detroit). Sooner or later, the pain of remaining with MAS will exceed the pain of implementing a different system, for the customers as well as the resellers.

Jeff:  Nice tip on the '' verses the ".  But you are right, two apostrophies don't make an inch.

masguru:  I pay the annual extortion.  It's hardly a "maintenance" fee, since there isn't any real maintenance that is provided.  Any problems are an additional charge.  Regaining functionality lost is an additional charge.  Calling my reseller to learn it's another stupid WAD is an additional charge.  It doesn't garner a "higher" NPS.  If anything, it lowers the rating as I realize every year when I sign the check how little value I get for my hard-earned dollars.  Getting back quote search now costs me an additional $500+ per year (for the extended solution) woo-whoo!

[#11]

Just returned from being on site at clients - a non profit rural health clinic.  As you can imagine, money is tight for them so I was giving them my "Work Smart, Not Hard" 60 minute seminar on Tips and Tricks for MAS 90 v4.3 when I encountered another inconsistency, this one in the general ledger (which has been in the new framework for for eons now).  I was showing them how to use transaction journals for transfers between bank accounts and a possible use for EFT payments (FED taxes, etc.)(though I prefer AP voucher entry with check printed for these type of payments) when it dawned on me once again the short comings of the transaction journal entry.

In General Journal entry, you have the ability to SAVE journal entries to use on a repetitive basis.  You also have the ability to copy a journal entry from history.  A very useful ability.

WHERE is this ability in Transaction Journal Entry?  I've been looking for it since the v4.0 release!!!!  While I am getting on in years, my hair is falling out and my eye sight is certainly not getting any better, I have yet to find the button that allows you to save the journal as a template for future use or the one that allows you to copy the journal from history.

I'll spare you my comments on how hard to read the transaction register is.  Is that a debit or a credit posting?  Don't really know until I update.  The signs have been wrong on several occasions....

Considering what we had in v3.71, transaction journals in v4.0 are MUCH improved.  Too bad the WAD doesn't Work As Desired!  Is consistency between programs (not to mention modules) too much to ask for.  What a terrific way to add VALUE to the end user at minimal cost.....