EPBCS is a feature rich planning solution built based on the best standards and on top of the leading Hyperion Planning platform. Everyone expected it to do wonders. Somehow, I couldn't fit that well into my solutions. I wanted to discuss about that in detail. why?
Both PBCS and EPBCS are built on the Hyperion Planning Platform that leverages industry leading OLAP engine Essbase. Let's see what EPBCS offers more. EPBCS is loaded with prebuilt frameworks for Workforce, Finance, Capex, and Projects; and with Accounts, Drivers, Assumptions, KPIs and Reports. Oracle support can help solve the problems quickly as they are well conversant with it compared to PBCS based custom build.
Pretty cool; Everyone need it. right? where is the problem
EPBCS is a prebuilt; it means solution is ready. It's a configurable solution, and, customer should configure it and use. Implementation should be solution driven; but not requirement driven. Customers should adapt their business process based on the solution cuz a prebuilt solution can't accommodate the different variety of processes and Chart of Accounts, and methods used for the plan makeup.
What's happening is majority of EPBCS implementations are going on requirements driven. They are breaking the solution into bits and pieces and trying to customize it, and make it work for the customer process. In the end, it's becoming a fail or underperforming rollout w.r.to customer expectations.
Why customers are not using the solution as intended?
1. Revenue & Gross Margin planning - You will never be able to convince the CFO office to replace their Sales and Margin Planning with that of EPBCS Financials. Their models are customer specific, they cover key drivers of the core business that are formulated considering the industry, region, flexibility, and internal finance process. EPBCS Models are good, it covers all. But, customers feeling is they are math and academic; good to see and help less.
2. SG&A Planning - Many of the customers wanted to go simple, and yet detail in certain account heads. EPBCS is too detail and complex to use. Aligning Chart of Accounts with varied depths is a challenge, and requires exercise.
3. Depreciation - If you're using Capital module, it's okay. If not there is no alternative for it.
4. Workforce - Payroll data both source system integration and integrating that data into the workforce planning process is too complex.
5. Capital & Projects Modules - They are pretty straight forward and governed by the accounting rules. I heard from some of the great Finance Executives that if the models can be made slick with the selection of industry and from there the configuration and customization would become more easy. I agree with the view. I prefer to go with my own custom models for Capital & Projects.
6. Oracle Support - For many issues, knowledge related clarifications, quality of the support is not as good as they did/do with the Hyperion Planning on-premise modules.
For all these reasons, customers are buying EPBCS, and they are driving it like a in-house development with too many customizations leading to a bad implementation.
What's your advise?
I am a trusted advisor to my customers. I shall explain all the benefits and issues with EPBCS and stress on the readiness required. I leave the decision to the customers.
What's your view on PBCS?
PBCS or some other name based on the licensing model, I consider this as a Planning platform on the cloud. This is a platform not a solution, comes with many great tools and libraries that are proven for more than a decade (I mean from Hyperion System 9) and powered by Essbase. I have had high regards about this technology platform. You can build anything in the planning world on this, still can make it tailor made for the customers.
Above is the one, my point one architecture (v0.1) that I recommend to my customers in the Analytics Solutions. PBCS has a reserved place in it. I extend from here upon the scope and reach of the solution.
Comments