PeopleSoft Reviews

Our company is using the PeopleSoft CRM for receiving data from different sources. For example, our employee management system database data.

Workday information will be stored in the PeopleSoft system. We will create some APAs, through those APA it's a third-party call to connect to the PeopleSoft systems.

PeopleSoft can improve by having proper connectors. It's very difficult to change some interfaces with the other systems.

In the next release of PeopleSoft, they should provide multiple connectors to support the latest systems, such as connecting with the Mule and Kafka. Additionally, they should be more reliable.

I have been using PeopleSoft for approximately three years.

The stability of PeopleSoft is good.

PeopleSoft is scalable.

The support I have received from PeopleSoft has been excellent.

The initial setup of PeopleSoft is easy.

I rate PeopleSoft a four out of five.

PeopleSoft needs an implementor to properly implement the solution. However, once implemented then it is easy to use.

I rate PeopleSoft a seven out of ten.

PeopleSoft is used for human capital management in my organization. It can manage a lot of business areas, such as payroll, time and labor, and absences.

The solution is very good and we have been using it for a very long time keeping us organized.

PeopleSoft is a good core system. It has a lot of functionality. They frequently update the solution and recently they have added some good enhancement features for higher education. We just switched to the new fluid interface and that is working very well for us. It is very good.

Employees can use PeopleSoft to input their time and their own absences. Additionally, they can look at their paychecks and configure their direct deposits.

PeopleSoft should be more flexible with the configuration. There should be less coding and more configuration.

I have been using PeopleSoft for approximately 30 years.

The solution is very stable, it is a senior or mature solution.

PeopleSoft is scalable. We are decreasing employees versus increasing right now, but it has worked well for us. We are using the solution extensively in our organization. We plan to increase usage.

We have approximately 9,000 employees using the solution in my organization.

The product strategist from PeopleSoft is very good. I have not contacted the support myself but I have heard they are good.

We have used other systems in the past. The organization is a University and we have been here for a long time.

The initial implementation is complex. Everything is complex when you first start using a new system. If someone tells you it is not complex, they can not be telling the truth. However, the most recent upgrade from 9.1 to 9.2 was pretty good.

When we first implemented the solution we used consultants but recently we did the upgrade of the solution in-house. We saved a lot of money.

We have an IT team of four who do the maintenance, checkups, updates and patching. Additionally, they answer user help requests. We have an additional three or four developers and administrators that help out during projects.

We are a University and the cost and license are negotiated privately.

We did a complete evaluation of other solutions, such as cost and customer responses, and we determined PeopleSoft was best suited for us as a University.

PeopleSoft is a stable solution and it has a lot of functionality. Additionally, it has good product strategist and user input support.

I rate PeopleSoft a nine out of ten.

We are not deploying PeopleSoft for our internal process, but we are implementing PeopleSoft to other organizations. Clients primarily use it for their financials, for the HCM, and some of them do use it for their supply chain.

The financial capabilities are great.

We really like the HCM.

It's great for helping users deal with their supply chain.

The stability is quite good.

The solution has the potential to scale. 

It's very easy to integrate with other solutions.

I'm not a direct user. I'm more of an implementor. Therefore, I can't speak to what may be missing. If we do need to add something, we can do so for the client via extensions. I'm not sure what a client would like in future releases.

There can occasionally be complexity in the initial setup.

The pricing could be lower.

We have been working with this solution for almost six or seven years. It's been a while. 

The stability of the solution is excellent. There are no bugs or glitches. It does not crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The scalability is fine. We don't have any issues if we need to expand. That said, we haven't had any situations where people wanted to expand anything. Of course, if it also happens it's fine.

We have about 15 clients on the solution so far.

Technical support has been fine. They are helpful and responsive. We're happy with the level of support we get. 

The initial setup can be straightforward or complex. We've dealt with both types of implementations. It really depends on the client and their requirements. 

We tend to implement this solution for our clients. 

This solution offers a perpetual license.

While I cannot compare the solution directly to others on the market, I can say that it would be ideal if the pricing was a bit less.

We are an implementor and a partner of Oracle.

In our client's environment, we are using the latest version of the solution. I can't speak to the exact version number.

I'd recommend the solution to other companies, however, it all depends upon the maturity of the customer, and its ability to adapt to this Tier 1 ERP's expertise.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

We use it for financial books. It is used for bookkeeping, accounting, and reporting.

It is on-premise, and the next logical step in the journey is to either take it to a public cloud such as GCP or go for SaaS.

It is a customizable product. We can customize it based on our needs, which is one of the features that I like about PeopleSoft. 

As far as financial accounting is concerned, the user interface is very good. You can also configure Chart of Accounts for all performance insights. 

Scalability is not there in PeopleSoft. Its performance and resilience are also very bad. When you're trying to stretch it, it breaks. It is not resilient. 

It is also not stable. It is stable as far as data is concerned, but the infrastructure is not stable.

I have been using this solution for more than 13 years.

It is not stable. It is stable in terms of data, but it is not stable in terms of infrastructure. This is because PeopleSoft has to rely on Oracle and Microsoft for the underlying infrastructure stack, so it boils down to how reliable these components are. From what I have seen, Windows is not reliable, and therefore, the time it takes for transaction processing is not good. It takes a long time.

It is not scalable. When you're trying to stretch it, it breaks.

Their technical support is not that good. Because we've done so much customization, they don't support us. They support only out-of-the-box features.

It was complex. It was done 15 years ago. I wasn't there when the installation was done, but it was quite complex.

I am not satisfied with this solution because its performance is not good. Everything Oracle promises is under-delivered. For example, version 12c of Oracle Database promises an in-memory capability feature, and they say that in-memory makes your workload super fast, but we haven't seen that improvement. It is a case of overpromising and under-delivering. It is also very difficult to adopt the features that Oracle keeps releasing. PeopleSoft is certainly very flexible, but we cannot use the new features.

I wouldn't recommend this solution because PeopleSoft is now the end of life. There are no new customers for PeopleSoft. I wouldn't suggest anyone to go for it. It is a dying product. Even though Oracle says that it will be supporting PeopleSoft until 2030, you shouldn't go for PeopleSoft.

I would rate PeopleSoft a six out of ten.

A valuable feature is HCM.

I would like to see a better UI.

The setup was complex because we have a union and our benefits are so complex.

We implemented via a vendor.

The most valuable feature is the continuous roll-out of bug fixes, new features, and functionalities. Oracle really listens to the customers and provides valuable content for when those PUMS come out.

It empowers users to perform ad hoc analyses themselves rather than having to go to IT or somewhere else. That makes it much more efficient for our users to do their jobs because they have access to data analysis in front of them instead of having to find that information elsewhere.

We struggle with release notes. There's a lot of information, and I would love to see release notes broken down into compartments. For example, here's security, this is what you need to do; or, here's the business side or the functional side, and it gives us the technical stuff. I would like to see the release notes deconstructed and then parsed out into, for example, I'm a technical developer or I'm a super user and I need to understand how this is going to change my business processes. I think that's where we've had some detailed workshops where we've had to dig that information out. Not that it's not there, but it's time consuming to do so. So it would be nice to have a bit more user-friendly release notes for the user community.

For HR, we've been using it for four years, and for finance, we've been on it for two-and-a-half years.

We've had no issues with deploying it.

I'd say it's stable because one of the things that we do is we separate all of our testing cycles. We do all of the initial testing in one environment, then we do integration, and then we do a brand new copy and production for our user acceptance. We have a few small defects that we have to resolve once we go live.

When we get to that part through Hypercare, which is usually where we keep project people on-site to help with defects, and we transition over to our support vendor, we don't see a dip or an increase in tickets. That helps. Because of our business people that have committed to doing that, it helps us keep the stabilization where it should be.

We are so excited about how this can scale. We know that everything is kind of hinging on version 8.5.5, so we're excited about it. I've had so many of my colleagues come up and say, "Anne, when can we do this and when can we go on 8.5.5?" I don't know that we can go this year, but we want fluidity and elasticity. We want all of this stuff. We love how they've taken the fluid pages and you can choose. If you're a super user and you need to get your hands on a keyboard, you can go classic. It's nice for our people that are out across the country. All they really want is to be able to use their mobile devices. We're all excited about it. They see the scalability and we feel like we're just getting our feet wet with it.

I love Oracle support. When we were going through our first set of PUMS last year, we did zero to 13, so it was a huge amount that we took on to do that many images all at once. We had probably half a dozen hot fixes that Oracle provided. I love that they were willing to help us. They knew that we were under some critical time frames and some of it was for the very user-facing applications, like travel and expense.

When you've got 3,000 people who are out there trying to approve expense reports and they're getting errors, technical support understood that and they responded very quickly. I am very happy with Oracle support.

We were on JD Edwards previously. We had been on it for 12 years. We had never upgraded so we're still going through a cultural shift in being on a product that is progressive, that is continually changing. We're trying to keep up with the usability side of it, which is a struggle for our users, but they're seeing the value in it and they're letting go of the old, comfortable JDE system. It's been a little difficult at first, but it's gotten much, much better in the last year-and-a-half.

You need to understand your core business processes. What are you really looking to get out of a software application? The application can do whatever you want it to do. Look at what your core processes are, look at what the application offers, and change your processes to fit that software.

Also, the more vanilla you can go, the easier it is, the better it is and the more value you're going to see when you go do PUMS, when you go to DBK, and you add all those bells and whistles.

We're a consulting company, therefore, we get involved in all kinds of use cases.

PeopleSoft is used for usually larger organizations and some middle tier. However, usually, organizations that are maybe 2000 employees or two and a half billion dollars or more tend to be users. They use it primarily for back-office systems, finance supply chain, human resources, payroll benefits, that kind of stuff. That includes recruiting and everything associated with HCM. It's one of the primary ERP systems.

The most valuable feature is that it's wide and broad and it does about everything anybody needs in a major organization from a back-office systems point of view. 

It's a mature product. I've been using it since 1994. It came out maybe a few years before that. It's matured over the years to where, from a back-office system point of view in those primary areas, if you want an all-inclusive system, you can do almost anything you need to do with PeopleSoft without having to buy other third party systems to bolt on to it.

They continue to improve and support the product. The latest announcement was that they're going to continue to support it through 2032. However, every year they add a year or two to that. They confirm their outgoing support for 10 years almost every year.

It's a real contrast between things like Workday and Oracle cloud. The biggest challenge we see as consultants from an Oracle cloud and Workday point of view is that you cannot customize those systems to better fit your business processes. Companies that are smaller and that are less complex tend to go with Oracle and Workday. The big advantage there is they don't have to do any upgrades. However, they're almost forced into the changes if there are new versions for these cloud systems. The good news is you don't have to upgrade them. The bad news is it may not support all your business processes as you want. Therefore, you have to change your business processes to fit the software.

The biggest disadvantage with things like PeopleSoft is that they do continuous support and fixes and upgrades. You get to choose when you want to implement that upgrade. However, in order to keep up, you have to upgrade. The biggest challenge with PeopleSoft is it's a trade-off between feature functionality and the pain of going through those upgrades. And when you upgrade, you've got to do some work. You have to look at what's available in the new version, figure out whether we're going to use that or not, and turn it on or not. On top of that, it's got to go through an implementation process.

Most people do about one upgrade per year. Some people do two, and some people get way behind. However, in order to take advantage of what they buy and pay for, they need to really do probably at least one upgrade a year. And it's a minor upgrade. It's not the kind of upgrade we used to think of that people did once every five years that was almost a reimplementation. In upgrade terms, it's a minor upgrade, however, it is an upgrade.

The difference in PeopleSoft and cloud version is the trade-off between not being able to do any customization and being forced into upgrades almost monthly. You don't have a chance to take your time. You don't have a choice when you do it. It just happens.

Within the company, we've been dealing with PeopleSoft for 15 years. I personally have been dealing with PeopleSoft going back to 1994. I have many, many years of experience working with it.

I would say their tech support is good. I don't have a problem there. They've been doing this a long time, so they know how to do it.

I've also used SAP - and have about five years of experience with it.

The software comes with a fee, with a license fee. The upgrade software comes with a license fee. However, it takes their staff time and resources to go through that. Sometimes customers will hire a consultant firm like us to help them get through it. That would be an extra cost, technically speaking.

The cost varies by license and license type. Many times, it's so much per user, and depending on which software modules you're using. It depends on the modules you're using and how many users you have using that module.

Some people buy what may be called an enterprise-wide license, where it's not really based on the number of users. You get more of a flat cost for that and the users may not be impacted. I haven't gotten involved in that in a while, therefore, I'm not sure how it works.

We're a PeopleSoft partner. We're primarily an Oracle and are a PeopleSoft consultancy where we implement and help people use the PeopleSoft systems. Now we're combining that with UiPath, and so most of the things we do are going to be PeopleSoft system related.

Having been in this business for 25 years or so, my biggest advice for PeopleSoft clients would be the same for any software client - that whenever they implement it, that they do it right and not try to do it cheaply.

Once they do it right, they will realize the benefit from doing it right forever, from then on. If they do it on the cheap to take shortcuts, they will pay the price for taking those shortcuts until they get around to making the investment to fix it. Customers are often a victim of themselves by trying to do it too cheap.

For example, I had one large enterprise client that asked their consulting firm how long it was going to take to put in PeopleSoft. They were putting in about everything PeopleSoft offers. It was a major implementation for the financial supply chain, human resources, payroll benefits, all that stuff. They had something like 130,000 people. It was a big, big corporation.

The consultant company came back and said, "Probably two years, maybe as soon as 18 months, but probably two years to get it implemented and into production from the time we actually start." The company came back and gave them six months, and the implementation was a disaster. The company tried to blame it on the consulting firm. However, they said, "Hey, man, you gave us six months and we should have taken two years for an organization of your size and complexity."

That's a little more than typical. Lots of times people will, instead of 18 months, take 12 months or 15 months. The more they try to shortcut the implementation, the more problems they create for themselves.

The biggest advantage - whether they're doing PeopleSoft, SAP - et cetera - for software companies and the clients, if they're going to put in a major software system, don't try to do it the cheapest you can. Do it the best you can. If you do that, it will pay off in spades. If you don't, it will screw you. That's the biggest advice I would have.

I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten.

A valuable feature is FSCM.

Provides fluid interfaces.

I would like to see better support, bug fixing, and documentation.

We have been using this solution for 15 years.

There were issues with deployment.

There were issues with stability.

There were issues with scalability.

I would give customer service a rating of 5/10.

I would give technical support a rating of 5/10.

The implementation was done in-house.