SAP HCM Reviews

I was using it mostly to keep the employee data and employee qualifications.

We were using the on-premise version.

We were able to pull a report this year that included region and status. We were able to give that report to the head of our HR.

The master data where most of the reports were run from was the most valuable. We were quite satisfied with this module.

It is a bit tedious and manual to work with.

At first, it was impossible for us to pull up a report of employees by status and region, though this was eventually fixed. Going forward, they should fix more things in the reports. E.g., I want to see on the reports the age of the employees, their position, their salary with their salary scales, and any promotions that they have had. People want to see these reports.

The stability was nice.

It was easy to scale out to three different regions.

There were about 50 users, but about 10 to 15 users were executives approving the subworkflow in the system.

The support wasn't that good. The implementation team didn't want to respond to issues. It took about three days to come and help us understand the system. 

I think they used the SAP acceleration methodology for setup, but I joined the organization after the setup.

The deployment took a year to make it fully work.

Go for SuccessFactors. It is the easiest to run, quite flexible, and user friendly.

By the time I was leaving the company, they were planning on buying new equipment (probably SuccessFactors). This depends on government budget though.

It can be used for personnel demonstration, time management, and business development.

Without systems nowadays, especially in HR, I've a problem because most decisions in HR are made based on data. If you don't have data to report on, that means the business' success will not be supported by data.

SAP HCM is used for payroll and core HR.

We are satisfied with the reporting by SAP HCM.

We find some challenges in the integration between SAP HCM and SAP SuccessFactors.

I have been using SAP HCM for nine years.

SAP HCM is a stable solution.

SAP HCM has very good scalability. Our clients for SAP HCM are enterprise businesses.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten for scalability.

Sometimes, we get fast responses from the solution's technical support. However, the technical support team's response time is sometimes very slow.

Neutral

Implementing the solution in core HR and payroll for managed services and employee-managed services is not straightforward.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy, I rate the solution's initial setup a four out of ten.

I rate SAP HCM an eight to nine out of ten for its user experience and ease of use when navigating HCM modules.

Overall, I rate SAP HCM an eight out of ten.

We use this solution for all of the organization's HR needs.

Most of it is similar to Oracle HCM. 

They have some interesting features in the learning space.

The extensibility that SuccessFactors talks about is when we are required to create an add-on solution or a small application, that could be developed within the ecosystem of the Oracle HCM itself, and then integrate it easily. 

This is a feature that we can look forward to seeing in  SAP as well.

The extensibility of the integration could be improved.

I have a lot of experience with SAP. I have been working with SAP for nine years.

We are using the latest version.

I have no issues with the stability of SAP HCM.

SAP HCM is a scalable product.

We have approximately 32,000 users in our organization who use this solution.

Technical support is a strong team.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was good.

Licensing fees are paid yearly.

I would rate SAP HCM an eight out of ten.

• Ease of use
• Improved productivity of personnel, because we use SAP for our inventory

It's intuitive, but not as intuitive or user-friendly as it should be. It's 2017, and I should be able to click once and just breeze through it. It's far more complicated than it should be.

I was not involved in the deployment of the product.

I think it's extremely stable. That's one of the reasons why we like it so much. I've had some problems, as it has jammed up on me before.

Generally speaking, I think it's exceptionally reliable. The glitches that I've encountered may have been due to a user error, because it's not so user-friendly and it's not so intuitive.

As far as I know, there is limitless scalability.

The technical support is a little slow, like 24 hours. I feel since it is 2017, if I have a problem, I should be able to make a phone call or send an email and get a response within minutes, an hour at the most. When things take a day, it slows me down. The problem resolution itself is OK.

I was not involved in the evaluation of any other products.

• Take your time.
• Learn it as well as you can so that you don't encounter problems.
• Try to learn as much as you can prior to jumping into it.
• Have contact information for when you have a problem.
• Just know what you're doing because it's good. It's just not so user-friendly and the response time on a problem is slow.

We have an on-premises deployment.

The level of exception reporting has improved the process by helping to avoid errors. You can see where there is a lack of knowledge of the system because people are not updating the data correctly.

The most valuable feature, in my view, is the level of exceptions or error messages that come back when something goes wrong. 

One of the valuable features is that it is integrated with a finance system, with journal and ledger integration. When you process, for example, payroll or costing then it can be posted directed into the finance system.

There are lots of good features, including the reporting, as long as you know what to look for.

The interface is data-based and outdated, without many features, so it could be modernized.

This solution is sufficiently complex that many end-users do not know how to operate it.

It takes a long time to apply an update patch to the system. It is a headache for any functional users because it requires a lot of IT involvement. This is unlike other solutions where either I can do it, or for cloud-based deployments, the vendor can do it online. With the time required for patching and testing, the internal IT teams sometimes try to avoid it and then perform patching only once or twice a year. In the meantime, the business is doing things manually. 

I recall that SAP was not that flexible when it came to creating the interface, or new tables,  because there were limitations when we were developing one of the new pension schemes. I remember that they were struggling to get things done. Also, when you do this, the internal business has to manually connect and configure whatever they've developed.

This is a very costly solution.

There were a lot of defects that I had to deal with because patches were coming out on a regular basis and it required a lot of time.

I was heavily involved in UAT and there were lots of configuration issues. There were development requests and I had to deal with the developers directly, which was a bit of a headache.

When I dealt with SAP directly, they were a little bit resistant to accepting the client's request for development. They said that it was due to lack of resources. The market share was small, so they didn't want to waste a lot of time.

Eventually, after pushing them in the right directions, technical support was good and created what I needed. In general, it's not the system that fails, it's the people who are using the system.

In the end, technical support does what needs to be done.

I have used other solutions including Resourcelink and Agresso, and the differences between them depend on what the clients are looking for. For example, I have dealt with clients who are moving from SAP to Itron, and other clients moving from Itron to SAP.

SAP costs a lot of money. In my view, this product is a waste of money for SMB because there are much better products available and licensing is an issue.

I don't know how they come up with this pricing, but it is ridiculous. For example, if you want to have self-service for employees and managers then you need to pay for additional licenses.

The performance is based on the user's knowledge of the system. It has to do with making sure that all of the features are enabled and all of the patches are there. There were quite a few defects that were patched by the IT team, and it was a lengthy process.

This solution is for an enterprise-level business, and I would never recommend SAP for SMB. SAP ByDesign, which is a different product, is better for small business.

Suitability of this system depends on a lot of variables. You would have to ask about ten thousand questions to consider the entire system and what is required. It comes down to whether the system is capable of adapting to the latest changes with legislation to do various things.

Also, it depends on how many skilled employees you need to have. There are business analysists, for example, and others who spend hours, and years, learning the system and understanding all of the settings and permissions. There are profiles, wage types, and info types, that decide who can access work and workflows, batches, and stuff like this. It's like driving a ship, where there are lot of things to do and lots of details. On top of this, you will need a development person who can do some coding. It all depends, really, on what the business is trying to achieve. It is for these reasons that I say it is not for the small business. If they can afford it then fair enough, but it will cost them a lot, and it is not cost-effective.

The biggest lesson that I have learned from using this solution is that you can trust no one. You can't trust the business, and you can't trust the people who support the system. I had to read a lot to prove that the system is capable of delivering certain functionality. People were objecting to this because they didn't want to get involved themselves.

This is a huge product and you have to always be up to date. It requires a lot of time in learning the system and doing the testing of new developments.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Our primary need is for payroll processing, which is why we rely heavily on SAP HCM.

One area that could be improved is the time-tracking and attendance system. We currently have an external system that uploads the data into SAP HCM.

We recently launched the system on a mobile app, and people have become accustomed to it. It's been easy for them, so we don't want to ask them to change to something else. We don't want to make too many changes too often.

Other than that, I find SAP HCM quite convenient and easy to use. The only issue so far is with the pricing.

I have been using this solution for ten years. I am currently using the Hana version and HCM module. 

It is a stable solution. I would rate it a nine out of ten.

It is a scalable solution. There are three administrators maintaining the solution: an HR person, a payroll person, and one backup.

The customer service and support was good. There were very helpful.

We were thinking of switching to a SuccessFactors solution. Due to some cloud issues there, we are sticking to the on-premise model for HCM

The initial setup for SAP HCM was straightforward for the most part. The entire deployment process took more than six months. The payroll setup was done quite well.

We took help from an IBM consultant for the HCM module, they were quite helpful. The deployment process had a blueprint that we followed. We checked the blueprint against some scenarios. Once everything looked good, we went ahead and launched the deployment.

The price of SAP HCM is really high, which is why many people choose not to use it. The licensing cost and other associated expenses can be a deterrent. It is an area that needs to be looked at.

We have been interested in using SAP HCM from the beginning because they have their own software. Currently, we have a separate appraisal system and recruitment system. We are exploring how we can integrate them with the SAP HCM platform.

However, we have encountered issues with cost and cloud compatibility. We might just use it for payroll and continue using different modules for other HR functions.

My advice for those looking to implement SAP HCM is to create a detailed blueprint beforehand, and this will make the process much smoother. It's critical to communicate clearly with your consultant and provide specific details about your required reports and outputs.

Overall, I would rate SAP HCM an eight out of ten. However, it would be even better if the solution were more cost-effective so people could also test other modules. Users should be allowed more uploads and ease of use, and users should be able to adapt to SAP HCM quickly.

The system has demonstrated high stability over the years, with no significant downsizing periods.

The cost is contingent on scalability. If you're seeking consultant-level insight, it involves a comprehensive HCM package rather than just managing at the employee level. Scalability is crucial, with consultants providing the necessary resources, expertise, and training to elevate teams efficiently—at a lower or higher level. In my company, which uses SAP HCL, maintenance involves overseeing four users at my level, including three team members, one of whom is a two-year female employee. Additionally, there's one consultant and two employees at the certificate level. Looking at the entire organization, I manage maintenance for sixteen thousand users.

Technical support through Telstra is available for SAP ERP, particularly for creating custom objects in SAP HCM when standard functionality falls short. The responsiveness of technical support depends on the complexity of the task. Simple workflows may have a quick resolution, while intricate processes, like complex triangular workflows, may take longer. The resolution time is influenced by both task complexity and technical team availability. In SAP implementation, a well-defined process can result in swift technical support integration, but more complex processes, such as those in SAP SCM, SAP M, and SAP Finance, may require more extensive collaboration with the technical team.

Positive

Our organization transitioned from Oracle TIN to SAP HCM due to SAP's superiority in providing comprehensive business solutions. While I focused on web development using Java and C++, the comparison revealed that Oracle lacked integration with our department. SAP's ERP system, serving as the main system for the entire organization, offered superior integration across departments compared to Oracle. 

The decision to switch was driven by SAP's cohesive solutions, superior functionalities, and overall package, addressing the limitations we faced with Oracle's inability to seamlessly connect different facets of our operations. The move to SAP HCM aligned better with our organization's objectives for an integrated and comprehensive ERP system.

The deployment time for SAP largely relies on your preferences. If you aim for a quick deployment, that's achievable, but if you prefer a more gradual approach, that's also possible. Typically, it depends on four to five people and the number of modules in use within the organization, usually ranging from five modules. In such cases, a minimum of eight to nine people may be involved in the deployment pro

The cost varies depending on the specific requirements. It is adaptable to the needs of the user – a higher package for extensive requirements and a lower package for more modest needs.

Overall, I would rate it seven out of ten.

Our primary use case of SAP HCM is for administration benefits and talent management.

The integration between the different models like personnel administration, work management, payroll, and time management are the most valuable and key features. It's also very important to make sure that the data is correct as well, to make sure that you get the best out of the solution. 

The interface is simple to use. It is quite easy. The dashboards are also user-friendly. 

The management side needs improvement. To me, I think people have underestimated this solution because we know what consists of all the objects in regards to the organizational structures, positions, departments, training, there could be better improvement on that. 

On the personnel administration side, it's very difficult to do custom development. You're always dependent on your editors to do that. And now again, I'm comparing it to SuccessFactors because on SuccessFactors it's very easy to do. Any additional fields or stuff you want, they have the ability to apply all those changes. I would say that's where this solution really falls short. It makes the maintenance and the support of the system very complicated as well. There needs to be more support for the HCM solution. 

The current on-prem solution is not that stable anymore because there is so much more work that the cloud offering has and you cannot do that with an on-prem solution. Very soon everybody is going to have to move to the cloud. 

I believe that the on-prem solution is going to have to phase out. SAP is focusing now on the cloud solution. And that's the reason why I feel obscure on Employee Central.

Technical support needs improvement. 

The initial setup is not complex. It will mostly depend on your consultant. I wouldn't say it's that difficult. I probably also would give it a six out of a 10. It's not as easy as SuccessFactors. 

I would rate it a seven out of ten. 

The biggest lesson I have learned from using this solution is that integration is so important. You must understand integration, even within HCM between the different module.