PeopleSoft Reviews

The allocation tool is probably the most valuable feature for us in PeopleSoft. With it, we can schedule it to run overnight and then find out what happened in the morning. Previously, everything had to be kicked off manually, and now we can just schedule a batch to run overnight. I don't have to actually run it because I just verify it.

There are definitely time savings and greater efficiency. We had a manual consolidation process, and when we updated to 9.1, we used that delivered process as well. I think over time, we're adopting more and more of what's delivered instead of the workarounds.

I know we're looking at the cloud, and I think we're tying to become more progressive, but I think that's just a cultural thing where it might be a little slower for a company like ours in that we're very concerned about security. Our company is in a paradigm switch where we were the quiet company, but now we're trying to become more outward-facing. We're doing more spots for, like, hosting the NCAA, advertising, and things like that. So I think they're pushing the solution out and trying to see how we feel, and I think culturally it's going to be a little slower for us. It's just a comfort level that we don't have yet have with PeopleSoft in cloud.

But as for specific features, I'd like to see integration of chart-fill requests so that I don't have to put it on a shared point and so it's readily available for a new account. I'd also like to see Financial Close Management sit on top of PeopleSoft instead of as a separate Oracle product.

We use the allocation tool and have pretty intense allocations, so that works pretty well for us. Previous to upgrading to 9.1, we had a lot of customization. When we did that upgrade, we took as much customization out of that process, and now we're just using the delivered solution.

We sell products, are there seems to be screen after screen after screen of data, such as attributes. We don't really mine the data, so there's no use for us to have all that information upon deployment.

We don't have stability issues with PeopleSoft itself but with the feeds coming into it. I don't know whether those stem from the source systems or not. Also, sometimes there are slow-downs, but that's generally due to server issues and not just PeopleSoft.

There have been no issues growing it, adding more users, more licenses, or more seats.

We had what I thought was a simply question about our consolidation process, but to ask Oracle support how to troubleshoot that was really difficult. They want you to build your whole system a demo environment; that's a lot of work just to answer what I think is a relatively simple question.

I usually Google issues and solutions, but to actually go to the support site, and I haven't had a lot of experience with that, but the back and forth seemed like they were asking a lot of really broad information and trying to scale it down.

I wasn't part of the team that originally implemented it, but I was involved in upgrades. I think it was extremely difficult. I wasn't on the project, but I was there when they needed me, and inserted me where they needed me. We hired IBM to help us do that upgrade, and I think there were a lot of pain points. It was kind of a two- or three-year process. I think there was good and bad, but not perfect, but it was difficult.

You have to be flexible and open to ideas and know that it's not going to be a perfect solution. This isn't a reflection, I think, of Oracle or, in our case, IBM, our contractor. They were just the experts we brought in to help us.

We love the General Ledger feature. It does what we need it to do -- financial reports of accounts payable, T&O, and T&E. I'm not called at 2 am to put out a fire anymore. And for me, the stability is extremely important. It's important that it's reliable, up, and available for clients when they need.

So many organizations are using it that we didn't have to develop something in-house. PeopleSoft has been around for a long time, and we bought it because it's a credible product. We didn't have to spend the money to build something ourselves that has all the functionalities that it already has. It does everything we need it to do.

We've had to build all our data warehouses and datamarts in order for PeopleSoft to do the detailed reporting that we need. I really wish we didn't have to do that. I think that if PeopleSoft had more detailed reporting we wouldn't have to do all this work. That's the real pain point for me, especially since we have to provide support for all of it. It's not a part of PeopleSoft, so we've had to create a whole other piece that connected.

We've had it for fifteen or twenty years. The clients love it. It's very easy to use.

We've had no issues with deploying it.

It've very stable and we've had no issues with instability.

Scalable is good now, and the team knows how to support it as we grow.

We had a large vendor team help us with the initial setup, and then I helped my team with the transition, making sure we were trained and ready to support it. But I didn't physically move code or anything like that myself.

We actually started the project for initial setup about five times because the clients wanted everything. We asked for specific functionalities because it really can do anything, but you can't just have the entire world. So the vendor came in with a solution, and we went with it. But the vendor team was huge and costly, which we can't have going forward.

We're hoping now as we're upgrading to the next version that we'll have our own in-house resources to do the work ourselves. But the PeopleSoft setup was so big with so many other pieces we needed for reporting that it took a long time to design with many parts that were extras in the downstream part of the system.

In fact, the integration with all the interfaces in our system was probably the hardest thing. We have over 80 different systems that feed our PeopleSoft application with around seven different formats of the general ledger. So from changing the old, very cryptic systems to the new layout has been a challenge. We've bit the bullet on doing that, though, and it's a lot to maintain.

We used a mixed implementation team of people from IBM, Infosys, and our in-house team.

It's good and we're pretty satisfied with it. Make sure you go with the latest version of PeopleSoft, but also make sure you plan and have the right people and resources trained to know the system. If you're new, get a demo and have a plan.

The SOAP and REST features are the most valuable features. What I like is that we can have multiple web services created and multiple consumers can use them together without any interruption or downtime. It helps us to have a very reusable kind of environment where we can have a single service that can be reused from multiple sources.

I'd like to have a dashboard on a mobile app where I can check the health of all the servers and middleware, where I can get alert notifications if there are any critical services going or not going up at all.

I also think it needs to be a little bit more robust as we have faced some issues such as thread counts with stuck threads. These issues came up basically because of the huge volume of data transactions, so if something could be enhanced so as to make it capable of handling more data, that would be good.

There are load also issues with OSB, and it doesn't provide logs. What this means is that I cannot go and check what happened to my incoming or outgoing transactions.

We've been using it for more than two years.

We haven't had issues with deployment.

It is a stable right now from what we have experienced so far.

It is good from a scalability perspective. It could have a different kind of feature such as OSB so that data can be consumed from it directly from the consumer or from an IPA gateway.

I have not experienced many issues requiring me to contact technical support.

Once you get the feel of it and learn how to use it, the ease of use and performance are the most valuable features. It processes everything very quickly.

Because it's so fast, we're able to work much more efficiently.

It needs a better interface on the financial side because there have been more improvements to the RMS interface than the financial one.

We've been using it at the organization since 1996.

We've had no issues with deployment.

It's been stable. We've had no issues with instability.

As far as I know, we haven't had issues with scalability.

I'm a test engineer, so I don't deal with Oracle technical support. If I find anything that's not working, I hand it over to our developers. But I haven't hear any issues they've had with technical support not providing answers.

It takes some time in order to set it up and to implement, make changes, and deploy it to our users.

How you use it will depend on the size of your organization and the number of transactions you do on your backend. If you have a small shop, there are other more suitable ERP solutions on the market that you can implement quicker.

Our end process is going through multiple procure-to-pay systems. So the most valuable feature of PeopleSoft is the collaboration that it provides between our procurement/purchasing and accounts payable.

Because it links our procurement/purchasing and accounts payable, we have a single way to track transactions.

PCM, the procurement side, is weak and is far from the strongest product. It leaves a lot to be desired with the integration of the contract management module along with the purchasing. There isn't really a strong way to allow folks within the organization view access to contracts without bringing that down to low-level security. It's just not flexible.

I've been with my current company for five years, and we implemented v9.2 in January 2014. Personally, I've used it for a number of years.

We've haven't had issues deploying it.

With our current implementation, we have some instability. But, I believe that that's something we'll overcome over time. Otherwise, it a mostly stable product, though there is still room for improvement in many areas.

As we've acquired companies, it's certainly been scalable for what we do with it. We've been able to integrate all of the pieces of the implementations back to new parts of our organization.

7/10 - Response time sometimes on what we consider critical issues to us isn't as fast as we'd like, especially with v9.2. We went in flat with 9.2.0, so there were a lot of bugs and things that we didn't realize were bugs until we called Oracle. Sometimes it was days waiting to find out if the issues we had had something to do to our system or whether it was with the product.

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.

Having a complete enterprise solution where all the reporting is in our own centralized system is great. Also, having capabilities for analytics and reporting needs is highly valuable for us.

It's improved or functioning as we went from a mainframe legacy system to an ERP solution, so it's just a whole different world. It's like comparing apples and oranges, as the benefits are all over the place because we didn't have the capabilities that we have now. It did take getting used to, but we're in a much better place.

It needs more reconciliation between the modules.

We've had no issues with deployment.

It is a stable product, and we have had no issues with instability.

It has scaled well for our needs.

We've opened tickets and the IT side handles that as I'm more on the functional side. We send the request to IT and they opened up the tickets, but the turnaround time is a little long.

It was a complex setup. There were a lot of man hours involved as it was a big project.

We implemented it with our in-house team.

No, we did a pilot program ten years ago and we already had the licenses and infrastructure in place for it.

Setup and configuration is key. It takes a lot. It depends on where you come from, though. If you're coming from another software that integrates, it's an easy implementation, but if you're coming from a thirty-year-old mainframe system, you're going to have some tough times ahead.

There are several new features in the PeopleSoft tool set that I've found particularly valuable, such as grid control and related actions.

It allows our business users to access information in a format that's easier for them to digest than just raw data.

The main area for improvement would be with performance in some cases, specifically with migrations. We've had to address some of those issues recently.

We've had no issues with deployment.

It's pretty stable, but it does depend on the release, like how early you are on the release that you are adopting. Stability on a particular version becomes better after a certain release of that version.

It has pretty good scaleability. We've had no issues scaling it for our needs.

The level of technical support varies, but we've been pleased with the ticket resolutions for the most part.

The implementation was done before I was at the company, but I haven't heard that it was particularly complex.

Get involved with the grassroots community, like conferences such as Collaborate and Alliance.

The fact that it's an all-enterprise solution is the most valuable feature to me. It's fully integrated with our HR and finance departments and works well throughout our campus infrastructure.

We're able to get great support and the latest updates that are convenient. I know much larger shops running PeopleSoft, which is great because we're a small shop and we're able to handle the ERP system as well.

I think that Oracle is making a lot of improvements right now with fluid implementation, new tools in the release of 8.5.5 and version 9.2, and the fluid interface. We just need to upgrade to the latest version. But in terms of what I'd like to see, I think it needs better integration with other parties. Right now, it's limited only to partners and it needs to integrate other technologies.

I transferred to the college eight years ago, but they've been live for 15 years. However, I did have the opportunity to implement PeopleSoft from our previous job and it's been good.

We've had no issues with deployment.

We're pretty stable. Very seldom do we have production errors.

What we have scales pretty well.

Technical support is very responsive. It's pretty much how you create the ticket. If I contact them when I need immediate help, they pretty much respond right away.

The initial setup was straightforward for us.

The way they've been supporting us, the way they've been upgrading the technology, I think it's great. There's only a few ERP as far as campus solutions go out there, and they're probably the best one.

The most valuable features most important to me are the web solution, the web interface, and the integration with other ECM products.

We've been able to customize it and add various modules to suit our suits. It's very flexible.

I know they have come up with some good analytical terms in the latest version, but I would like to see it improved further.

This is an area I would warn others about. I've worked on several implementations and there's a long period of time within which PeopleSoft needs to be implemented. It also comes at a high cost depend on how many modules that are implemented at one time.

It's been stable. We haven't had any issues of instability.

I think it scales pretty well. It's customizable so we can have all of our customer solutions which are most frequently used by our company and for PeopleSoft. We have been able to expand to different, new products and we're able to integrate them pretty easily.

I'd expect customer service to be better than they are. I give them a 6/10.

Most businesses that use PeopleSoft can easily make the system suit their business, so I think it's flexible, but it adds complexity to the setup.

Beware of the price as it adds up with additional modules.