Sage 100

JobPack - Dimension Funding LinkedIn Group A discussion was started on this group today promoting JobPack, a scheduling package integrated with Sage 100 ERP. I had never heard of it, but it struck a nerve with me, since there are so many people in the Sage community who constantly strive to find alternatives to JobOps. Here was my comment in that group (and repeated in the JobOps group): Sage 100 ERP has had a seamlessly integrated custom/make-to-order/job shop function that includes capacity scheduling for years - JobOps. It constantly appears to be the favorite target of many in the Sage community to find alternatives, rather than embracing something that is proven and works. Sage has not really helped the situation by practically ignoring it and refusing to allow us to present the latest version to the sales people. Also remember JobOps is framework compliant, unlike Work Order and MRP, which many seem to think are good alternatives when adding modifications. Complaints include JobOps is too expensive and it's too complex. Manufacturing is complex and it requires something that addresses that. As for cost - you get what you pay for.

I agree with your line of thinking on this. I've also noted customers tend to have this ""magic bullet"" thinking about manufacturing. Most (ok maybe it's many and not most) of them have very little enthusiasm for running an accurate set of inventory records --- however they all want the cost accounting system and reliability of a Fortune 100 company. The common thread: It should take no change on their part, mold to their antiquated methodology that nobody remembers why it's being done and should be provable in a 2 hour ""kung fu"" demo. And it should work regardless of their (lack of) inventory recordkeeping.

I work with ""big boy"" Engineer to Order, Make to Order, Configure to Order software like Epicor 9. I am also a JobOps consultant. JobOps has some warts, and its lack of a multi level BOM is frustrating but for smaller job shops its way simpler than solution like Epicor 9. If the company is already running Sage 100, its really almost the only decent option outside of dropping 100. I don't believe X3 is even particularly good in job shops (perhaps somebody can advise)

@MarkChinsky I agree that if you have Sage 100, it is the best solution. No, X3 does not ready for job shops, and Sage readily admits that. They mentioned 2015 - 2016 the functionality may be there, but that's not really their market.

I do have to say that JobOps Scheduling is weak and has been loaded with bugs. I've had 2 Scheduling implementations in the last 6 months which have revealed multiple bugs - which JobOps eventually fixed (and many times by an act of Congress) - yet there remain multiple functions that are half working or just plain weak - and JobOps' reasoning is ""it is working as designed"". JobOps needs to step up to the plate and rewrite the JOSCH board so that it is usable and fix other functions that I have reported in order to have happy, successfully implemented Scheduling clients. How many Scheduling modules have been sold, and how many are implemented? The ratio is many:hardly any. Having clients that are actually on board to get Scheduling working live, then having it fail due to broken and weak functionality in key areas that real-world scheduling clients need is where I'm at.

On JobPack website: Q: What ERP/MRP systems are your system compatible with or able to integrate? A: Any system that runs on an industry standard database ie Microsoft SQL, Oracle. I'm assuming ProvideX is not considered an industry standard database.

This does not look like its meant to replace jobops in anyway. It's a 3rd party planning/scheduling and MES system. Similar to PlanitTogether http://planettogether.com/ Stuff is way out of the league of most people who would use 100 to manage manufacturing.

@JaneScanlan I'm not sure I would characterize the scheduling as weak, and I'm not sure there are bugs as much as design shortcomings. Most of what is there is the same functionality when you were at Synergistic. My analysis is that very few customers use scheduling, because in this type and size of market, they do not have a good handle on their actual capacity, they do not really know the time requirements of operations, they have not actually entered any of those numbers, and, most of all, they have no one they can consistently assign to keep the schedule updated. The system is actually too sophisticated for this market. I'm not saying that's right, but that's a fact. There is no real motivation to improve the design as long as so few customers use the module, so it exists as a sales tool primarily.

In my experience, anything short of a psychic interface is ""too much work"" in this market. I even had one customer who tried JobOps scheduler, couldn't maintain it, had me write a scheduler ""exactly the way they wanted it"", and they still use Excel because they can just rearrange the whole damn thing any way they want to whenever they want to.

Only pain can change........

Generally users do not understand the concept of data entry for a database vs. data entry for a spreadsheets. Spreadsheets are intuitive, but once you are faced with volumes that are 10 or 100 times more, they are no longer practical. The answer is to provide interfaces that people are comfortable with - like the spreadsheet format. I've recommended this for the JobOps Configurator for years, but Synergistic has claimed (well actually only one person there with the initials RJ) that this is inconsistent with the design of the Configurator. It's not. It is just a UI. The same concept works for Scheduling, as @PhilMcIntosh has done.