|
| Home > Consolidation Software Comparison |
This comparison is based on a software selection process we were involved with in early 2004 for a multinational based in Switzerland with a turnover of around 2 Billion Swiss Francs. Three vendors where short listed from a long list similar to the vendors listed on the Directory page. The short listed vendors were selected based on a desk review of functionality and local market presence.
Workshops have been held with three system vendors and three systems have been evaluated from 24 February 1 March 2004:
| Vendor | Product | Version |
|---|---|---|
| Cartesis | Magnitude | 8.3 |
| Frango | Controller | 2.0 |
| Hyperion | Financial Management | 3.5 |
This system evaluation is based on several criterias:
" Functionality/ease of use
" Implementation risk
" Vendor profile financial strength/user base/local support
" Technical
" Price
The three vendors were also asked to give three reasons of why we should choose their system. The key features of each system are:
System Key Features
Flexibility
Audit trail
Statutory consolidation functionality
No programming
Simplicity
Predefined consolidations
Administration through web- and/or Windows client
Easy design, administration and maintenance
Calculation, Translation & Consolidation rules
Frango stressed simplicity, which is relevant but probably for our purposes Frango Controller system is too simple and by being simple it also loses some flexibility.
Cartesis mentioned flexibility with all their dimensions, but with flexibility comes also complexity for the system administrators. We saw it clearly during the demonstration of the system how complex it was to maintain the system using the many dimensions. All the dimensions allow an excellent audit trail, which is really a strong point of Cartesis Magnitude.
Hyperion stressed the ease of administration and use as well as rules built in, but ease to customize. For us the use of hierarchies in the chart of accounts will be very helpful. It also makes it easier to understand for the users. Hyperion also emphasised the fact that they are the only truly web-based solution. This is important going forward, because this is the technology for the future.
Functionality/ease of use
As this is the primary financial reporting and consolidation tool for GGG it is important that all functionality that is required is in the system. The ease of use is of significance because the adoption of the system by the users depends heavily on it and the resources that the company has to spend on training must not be excessive.
All three vendors have a web-interface. The evaluation of the 31 key features are included in the appendix as this is based on a very detailed questionnaire. Top scores are (of a max. 330):
Hyperion Financial Management 310
Cartesis Magnitude 306
Frango Controller 289
Below we have summarised our conclusions about the functionality:
2.1.1 Frango Controller
Frango Controller is a good product but lacks power and flexibility and is probably not appropriate for a company of Gate Gourmets size. For example a simple validation that receivable accounts are debits cannot be performed in Controllers logic. This validation must be partially performed in Controllers data entry forms, which will make the system slow for the user.
2.1.2 Hyperion Financial Management & Cartesis Magnitude
Both are excellent products and are similar in concept and architecture and the workshops ended in quite similar feature evaluations. We have therefore focused on areas where one product is better than the other.
2.1.3 Hyperion Financial Management
HFM is better than Cartesis Magnitude in the following areas:
1. Ease of use. HFM appears slightly easier to configure, use and maintain.
2. HFMs dimension elements are organised using hierarchies. We think this is easier to understand and maintain. Too many dimensions also makes the consolidation time longer.
3. HFMs Report Writer has some extra features for example conditional formatting which allows flagging of out-of range figures.
4. HFMs web interface for users is better. This is important, as it is what 95% of people using the system will see.
5. Integration with Hyperions other products. Planning, Strategic Finance etc.
6. More built-in functionality like inter-company and budgeting.
7. Hyperion has better integration to SAP (have been SAP certified), but this is an add-on and not included in the price.
8. David Crawford evaluated the drill-down in HFM to be significantly better than in Magnitude. My impression is that Magnitude is better. The evaluation of this point was the only evaluation with a difference in scoring of 2. All other differences were 1.
2.1.4 Cartesis Magnitude
Magnitude is better than HFM in the following areas:
1. Pre-built models can be more easily adapted to Gate Gourmets needs due to Magnitude architecture.
2. Additional dimensions make Magnitude more flexible. However, Hyperion probably limited HFM to four additional dimensions because it improves consolidation performance and eased the maintenance. It would have been easy to give to HFM more dimensions.
3. The audit trail is better in Magnitude due to the fact that each record in the database has an audit ID attached to it.
2.2 Implementation risk
The system has to be live no later than 1 August 2004. This is a tight deadline, because a group reporting chart of accounts is not available at the beginning of the implementation. Therefore, it is important that the implementation partner can provide certain standard templates that can be modified in the process, or that the product is so simple to implement that the deadline can be kept.
In our opinion there is not big differences in the implementation risk between the three systems, as the risk factors more relate to internal GGG issues regarding the design of the application and the migration of data (this is a potential problem, because of the lack of transparency in FDC for instance related to automated journals).
2.3 Vendor profile: Financial strength/user base/local support
As with any IT system it is important that the vendor has financial strength and a certain user base, so future support and upgrades can be expected. Furthermore, the user base is important for the heavy-users, so that they can exchange experiences and learn from each others. It is also important to ensure that there are people available in the labour market with the skills, should a situation arise, where the responsible system administrator gets other work. Local support could be useful at the local sites, because of the time-differences between Switzerland and some GGG units.
Profile Cartesis Frango Hyperion
Turnover (2003) N/A 256,4 mSEK 510,5 mUSD
Result (2003) N/A 106,0 tSEK 34,1 mUSD
Established 1985 1987 1991*
Employees 2400 216 2600
GGG Support Frankfurt, DE Baar, CH Zürich, CH
No. of world-wide offices 30 14 43
Installations world-wide (all products) 1,300+ 2,000+ 9,000+
Contracts in CH** 11 170 13
Helpdesk 8-18 helpdesk (can be extended to 24- hour helpline) 24/7 helpdesk 24/7 helpdesk
*Before then, it was IMRS MicroControl (this product was available from the beginning of the 1980s)
** Installations of the systems in question, except Frango has included the figures for Frango Consolidator
2.4 Technical
The system must work on the GGG IT infrastructure and be in alignment with the IT strategy of GGG. This is not a deciding factor, but is still important that we have full support from the IT department.
Technical Cartesis Frango Hyperion
Client Remote Browser Browser + ActiveX Browser
Client Head Office Windows Application Browser + ActiveX Browser
Client Administrator Windows Application Browser + ActiveX Browser/Windows client
Web Server Apache, MS IIS MS IIS MS IIS
Database Server MS SQL, Oracle, DB2 MS SQL MS SQL, Oracle, DB2
There are not large differences between the systems as seen from the table above, but the only true web-based system is HFM.
2.5 Price
Price should be a factor in the evaluation. The price includes software licenses for the software, user license cost, estimated implementation costs and maintenance cost. All vendors have been asked to submit their offers together with a proposed implementation plan. When the first offer was received, they were asked to lower their prices, but only Cartesis did so. Frango and Hyperion wanted to negotiate only, if they got a confirmation that the list was narrowed further, and they were still in the race.
Initial offer
Pricing (CHF excl. VAT) Cartesis Frango Hyperion
Software 133.305,50 250.000 337.500
Users (based on set user-type list) 163.887,35 143.000 167.400
Consulting & Training 138.400 77.000 238.800
Total 435.592,85 470.000 743.700
Annual maintenance 18% * 297.192,85 = 53.494,71 18% * 393.000 = 70.740 18% * 504.900 = 100.980
Second round
Pricing (CHF excl. VAT) Cartesis Frango Hyperion
Software 108.000 Negotiable Negotiable
Users (based on set user-type list) 90.000 Negotiable Negotiable
Consulting & Training 138.400 Negotiable Negotiable
Total 336.400 Negotiable Negotiable
Annual maintenance 18% * 198.000 = 35,640 Negotiable Negotiable
Based on the information contained in this document, which is based on inputs also from David Crawford, I suggest that we go for Hyperion Financial Management (HFM), if we can get a better price. The reason for this proposal is the following:
" Ease of use
" Better use of hierarchies in the dimensions
" Excellent report writer (with conditional formatting for example)
" The web front end is well-organised around working processes
" The system has integration possibilities to other packages such as a planning module and a strategic finance module
" More built-in functionality -> budgeting, rolling forecasts, inter-company matching process, reporting process management
" Hyperion scored highest in the workshop measured on 31 functionality requirements (evaluated by myself and David Crawford)
" Allows graphics over the web. Strongest graphical capabilities in the standard package
" Only system with correct minority and associate interest calculation
" Good GAAP adjustment capture and reporting
" SAP interface and certification
" Best local support worldwide
" Best local support Head Office
Both Cartesis and HFM would be a good choice for Gate Gourmet. We slightly prefer HFM for the above reasons and because it is Hyperion. However, we would not pay significantly more for HFM than Cartesis Magnitude as the products have very similar functionality.
| Copyright © 1999-2008 Consolidation Consultancy Limited | Last updated: 25 Jan 2008 |