JD Edwards EnterpriseOne Reviews

JD Edwards EnterpriseOne is an ERP solution for our customer's business processes comprising of manufacturing, financials, procurement, inventory, et cetera.

JD Edwards EnterpriseOne has improved within all the solutions and there have been a lot of investments by Oracle in these solutions. Most of the functionalities, and business requirements, are available for the system in the solution and there have been enhancements to the processes, UI, and tools, which have been done on a regular basis.

The inbuilt BI user experience and enhanced UI analytics, are very good. These are key features I love about the solution. It is more user-friendly with functionalities continually updating and there's less technical dependency. Rather than hiring a technical person to explain everything or doing the development for you, anyone can do it on their own without any technical help, such as the end-users.

I have been using JD Edwards EnterpriseOne for approximately 18 years.

JD Edwards EnterpriseOne is highly stable.

JD Edwards EnterpriseOne is best suited for small and medium business enterprises. There are multiple features in the solution that customers look for and this is why it has been a good solution for the past 30 to 35 years in the market.

JD Edwards EnterpriseOne is a scalable solution.

If there's any problem, such as a bug in the system, you have the solution on the knowledge garden, on the Oracle website.

I am an engineer for the last 18 years and I have not seen any other solution from the market that is better. I have seen some comparable solutions, that might be on par with the JD Edwards EnterpriseOne. However, JD Edwards EnterpriseOne is being rated as the tier one ERP in the industry for SMBs.

The initial setup of JD Edwards EnterpriseOne is straightforward. However, it could improve.

I rate the setup of JD Edwards EnterpriseOne a three out of five.

The maintenance of JD Edwards EnterpriseOne is very low. There can be support after the implementation, but I've seen a lot of customers using the solution without the support. They are able to maintain the solution on their own.

My advice to others is JD Edwards EnterpriseOne is excellent. It has multiple features and business processes of the industry, especially the manufacturing industry, out of the box. There are fewer customizations required. It can meet, 90 to 95 percent of the standard business processes' out-of-box functionality. It is a very good solution from a business point of view.

I rate JD Edwards EnterpriseOne a nine out of ten.

We use this solution for the financial model. We use it for accounts receivable, with payments, accounting, fixed assets, inventory, and purchasing.

We are a quite large B2B company. The solution is deployed on-premise.

I think it is strong in sales, inventory, and pricing.

Something that could be included is a supply chain management system. That's what we're looking for.

I have been using this solution for 25 years.

Stability is good.

Scalability is good. We can do a lot without any problems. We have about 600 people using this solution.

Setup is simple. For deployment, we used eight people to run the software.

We used both consultants and resellers for deployment.

The licensing costs are on a yearly basis, and there are no additional costs.

I would rate this solution 10 out of 10.

The college relied heavily on JD Edwards EnterpriseOne for all its financial reporting, procurement, and project management needs. It was a crucial component of the day-to-day operations at the college.

The most valuable features of JD Edwards EnterpriseOne are financial reporting, procurement, and project management.

The solution could improve by having additional efficient analytics available to more users. They should allow a sample database to be able to test and do proof of concept would be extremely valuable to all of our clients.

I have been using JD Edwards EnterpriseOne for approximately 20 years.

More transparent pricing of the software is needed.

I rate JD Edwards EnterpriseOne a nine out of ten.

We are using the latest version. 

We use the solution for operational requirements, including procurement, inventory and management. As we are advocates of contraction, we cover almost everything within the system. 

We found that the system was unable to address many of our concerns, especially when it comes to project management. We actually found it to be quite hard to use and to lack user-friendliness, which is the reason we decided to move. 

While the overall function for providing coverage is good, the way the system works turned out to be a bit difficult. Efficiency was an issue, as well as user-friendliness. Something which would take five minutes in a standard ERP, takes 10 with the solution. The method of handling the entire transactions should be greatly simplified.

When it comes to scalability, a much larger team is needed to handle the system than would otherwise be the case with an SAP solution. 

The solution is really expensive. 

If used properly, one can see a return on his investment. If not, it will cost a person a lot of money. It's that simple. 

I have worked with technical support and it actually involves two types of consultants, one technical and the other functional. The technical requirements, such as coding, which comprise the backend, should have more people involved for delivering what is needed.

We have been using JD Edwards EnterpriseOne in excess of four to five years. 

The solution is stable.

When it comes to scalability, a much larger team is needed to handle the system than would otherwise be the case with an SAP solution.

The solution is used extensively in our organization. 

I have worked with technical support and it actually involves two types of consultants, one technical and the other functional. The technical requirements, such as coding, which comprise the backend, should have more people involved for delivering what is needed. 

We have plans to move to another solution. 

Much cost-consuming staff is needed for deployment and maintenance. 

If used properly, one can see a return on his investment. If not, it will cost a person a lot of money. It's that simple.

The solution is really expensive.

When it comes to scalability, a much larger team is needed to handle the system than would otherwise be the case with an SAP solution.

The deployment is handled through a third party; in which we have a team of consultants. They handle everything, from the setup, to the implementation, to the training. 

My advice to others is that they use what is available in the system and not attempt to exceed its capacity. 

I rate JD Edwards EnterpriseOne as a five out of ten. 

Recently, we helped one of our clients to implement centralized procurement using the solution. Our clients used to handle their procurement activities separately for individual countries. Now, they have centralized procurement. We do not implement the solution for our clients. We do small projects like improvements to the existing systems.

The solution’s Accounts Payable and Procurement modules are the most stable and quite useful compared to other finance modules. For modules related to finance, we are quite satisfied with the AP, General Accounting, Procurement, Sales, and Inventory modules.

During our procurement centralization project, we noticed that the EDI interface is slightly complicated. Certain fields are insignificant, but we have to enter information into those fields because the system would not proceed further without those inputs. So, the EDI interface should be improved. The Fixed Asset module is not desirable because it is complicated.

Though the solution has a lot of good features, I do not like the dashboard. If VA tools can be integrated into the solution, it will be helpful for key decision-makers in the organization, like CFOs and CIOs. Currently, these decision-makers rely on a separate VA tool to obtain information.

I have been using JD Edwards since 2007.

The stability of the solution has been a challenge. I would rate stability a seven out of ten.

The scalability of the product is not great. Some users are more comfortable with SAP as compared to JD Edwards. Our clients are generally medium-sized enterprises. I rate the scalability a five out of ten.

The technical support is good. Oracle responds to the queries we post. They are quite knowledgeable. Support has not been a challenge for us.

Positive

In my previous organization, I used Tally. JD Edwards is a much more vast and better tool when compared to Tally. The best part about JD Edwards is that it is an integrated system. All the modules are interrelated. The transactions are interfaced with the finance system, which serves as a reporting mechanism.

If a client asks us to create a new report, our developer takes more time to create the report. If there were any tools available within JD Edwards, it could have helped the developer to code faster.

Since I have been working with the solution for around 15 years, I find the initial setup and configuration simple and straightforward. We need basic experience and domain knowledge to easily understand the configuration and setups. I rate the initial setup a nine out of ten.

The deployment of the solution does not take much time. It is manageable. The CNC administrator team manages the deployment. Deployment is not a challenge.

I am a subject matter expert for finance. People looking to start using JD Edwards should look at the chart of accounts and other basic setups in the finance modules to get an overview of the solution. I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.

This is a stable and solid product. 

We've lost the second and third layer of support to a company that specializes in JD Edwards, so they do all the changes for us. 

I've been using this solution for 12 years. 

We have some small issues but the stability is fine. 

The scalability is good. 

We have a monthly SOA meeting. Tech support is always busy with tickets, incidents, changes and service requests.

The initial setup is somewhere between straightforward and complex. It was not straightforward, but it was done a while ago and would likely be simpler these days. We used a third party for our implementation 12 years ago. We now have 600 users. 

We've seen a return on our investment. 

The licensing costs are reasonable. 

I recommend this solution and rate it 10 out of 10. 

The use case is finance, procurement, sales, or management on the touch screen.

The solution has significantly reduced the number of modifications to our system from the previous software. Enterprise One has come in to reduce the modifications that need to be done, as well as the interface between other systems. Furthermore, the solution has also increased operational efficiency.

There are numerous good features. Our customers really like the bank configuration of the solution. By budgeting regarding the financial base for the management. There are a host of features that our customers are interested in. The features really have to be self-explanatory.

I would like the user experience to be more user-friendly. The current reporting system is not good; the only options are to export to PDF and Excel. The previous reporting system was not good either unless we do blind reporting where we can find our own report, such as a DTE stop report. It is not good compared to our website.

I have been using the solution for eight years.

The solution is very stable.

The solution is scalable. Our business can scale up for our customers as we start from the video on live message all the way to the back end.

I previously used SAP Business All-in-One but I prefer JD EdwardsOne. 

Our price range is very competitive, and JD EdwardsOne is easy to use. Additionally, the new user interface is user-friendly.

The initial setup can be a bit tedious. If we have to set the hang-up, the process of scrubbing the tables is also tedious. Therefore, we need someone with the necessary skills and experience. However, if we have experience in JD Edwards, the initial setup should be manageable.

The deployment time depends on the organization. If the prototype and business processes have already been completed by the company, then we will only need to manage the project for them to go live. However, this is especially true for recent cases. It takes a bit of time to do an enterprise deployment, so if we only have to do financial and procurement, we can expect it to take four to six months. It also depends on the customer's readiness and we require eight consultants for a medium-sized deployment.

Our organization implements the solution for our customers.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

I don't think the solution is difficult to maintain, especially if we provide good training. The solution is hard to automate, but with good training for the customer, it should be manageable.

Training is required to use the solution, and I recommend consulting a professional before making any major changes to the system.

I help implement it, set it up, and support it. It is really good for clients who use it for financials, supply chain, payroll, human resources, and manufacturing, so almost everything.

I use multiple versions of it, such as 9.0, 9.1, and 9.2, because I support many customers. In terms of deployment, the customers have all kinds of deployments such as traditional data centers, public cloud, and private cloud.

It brings operational efficiency by integrating different processes within the organization into one system. It also brings best practices of the industry into your processes. You can configure the processes within the software in a way that they align with the best practices that exist in the industry.

It is highly configurable. You have a choice in terms of how you want to run it. You can run it in your own data center, in a private cloud, or in a public cloud. The choice is really up to the customer.

They have been improving it every day, but it could have more automation. 

I have been working with this solution for 19 years. 

It is pretty stable now. There were earlier releases that weren't as stable, but it is becoming more and more stable every day.

It can scale if architected well. It is highly configurable, and it is dependent on how a customer chooses to set it up. It is built to scale for 5,000 users. It is not really a limit, but 5,000 or less is where it performs well.

Their technical support is good.

Our clients have used legacy systems, homegrown systems, and other ERP solutions.

It is complex. In terms of deployment, you can get it all up and running within a month, but its implementation is a long process. It depends on the size of the organization and the number of processes they're trying to implement. So, implementations can take anywhere from six months to two years, depending on how big the organization is.

The number of staff required for deployment and maintenance depends on the implementation. In terms of their roles, there are system admin and developers. Then there are application consultants or business analysts. They are the people who have expertise in a particular domain such as financials, supply chain, or manufacturing. So, it depends on the different processes that you are going to set up in JD Edwards. You could have an organization that is only implementing financials, and in that case, you only need one financial SME, but if you have an organization that is going to implement financials, manufacturing, and supply chain, you're going to need SMEs for these areas.

It depends on the number of users and the modules that you want to buy. It is licensed on a perpetual license basis. You buy the license costs upfront, and then there is maintenance for support that you pay every year, which is typically about 20%.

The expense also depends on an organization's IT strategy, such as whether they're going to support the system internally or whether they're going to get an external vendor like my company to help support it.

Make sure that you have the right strategy on whether you're going to support it internally or you're going to hire an external vendor for it. It needs a specialized skill set; it is not something that anyone can just support.

I would rate it an eight out of 10. This is based on what I've heard from my customers and people who use other solutions. I haven't worked with too many other products to give a fair comparison.