-

May 2003
- The LawsonGuru Letter is a free periodic newsletter
providing
provocative commentary on issues important to the Lawson Software community.
The LawsonGuru Letter is published by-and is solely the opinion of-John Henley of Decision Analytics.
Visit Decision Analytics at
http://www.danalytics.com. For subscription information, see the bottom of this message.
- The LawsonGuru Letter is not affiliated with Lawson Software.
In this issue:
1. Guest Spot: Version 8 Invoice Matching
2. CUE in Review
3. Life After Lawson?
4. Reader feedback
5. Survey: CUE Favorites
6. Lawson Tips & Tricks
1.
Guest Spot: Version 8 Invoice
Matching
(by Bill Ianni, Independent Lawson Consultant;
contact Bill at
bill@ianni.net)
So you've decided to implement Version 8 Invoice Matching. You were told
that Lawson has completely overhauled the application and the new module
bears no resemblance to that old, difficult Version 7 system. The new
Matching system will streamline processes by introducing a rules-based
approach to decision logic - quite a contrast to Version 7 where you
processed each invoice on a case-by-case basis. Well Guru, there's a few
things you should know before leaping in.
First, just because new functionality becomes available does not mean that
we put common sense to the side and turn on functionality before having
proper procedures and disciplines in place. For example, Chargebacks are
unquestionably the single greatest improvement in the new module. Finally
there's a method for capturing the original distribution for overbill
scenarios rather than plugging the differences to some generic tolerance
account. Chargebacks update the Asset and Activity, and can be default
with zero user intervention! Sounds great! Better make sure Procurement
has Vendor Agreements signed, sealed and delivered first though.
Otherwise, you'll be spending your days fielding phone calls from angry
vendors.
Actually, there's quite a bit of forethought required when designing
Procurement so that it will properly support your Matching set up. For
example, you have to place Service items on their own PO's and not mix
them with other Item types. Otherwise, AP staff has to jump through hoops
to match Services. For the other Item types, you had better thoroughly
test various unit-of-measure scenarios.
The Rule Group set up can be difficult to swallow - so many options!! What
I really love is the Line Invoice Match. This is presented as the 'middle
of the road' match option; one step further than Version 7 matching, yet,
not quite the full ambition of the Detail Match option. Oh, but if you
wanted to be able to match partial's, or take advantage of Messaging, you
can't use it. In the end, the Rule Group set up only works well with a
very specific approach.
And what of the new Messaging functionality? Where does it say in the
documentation that each of the Messaging systems is independent of the
others? Try turning them all on at once and see what happens. What you'll
end up with is the same cost discrepancies looping through the Matching
process two or three times! What does a Message do exactly anyway. It
doesn't update the cost on the invoice, and you may still have to go back
and adjust it. As far as I can tell, it's an automated way to interrupt
the Payables process to alert someone that a manual process must take
place before the invoice can be paid. Fact: only some of the Messages are
designed to reach an actual conclusion.
You'll also want to implement some custom reports to
effectively manage the message queues. The standard MA264 and PO251
reports are grossly inadequate, and you'll end up
needing to pull 4 or 5 of the canned reports to
paint a picture of what's going on.
Receivers need to know which Receivers to release and/or how to process
the Returns that the Buyers create when they
respond to messages. AP needs to know which
chargebacks the Buyers have created for their messages, and so on.
Want to circumvent the Match process and pay the invoice without matching
it? No problem, there's a form for that. All you have to do is enter,
release, post and pay. Just watch out for the Receipt when it eventually
comes in. It'll continue to accrue with the month end job (PO135), and
you'll have the charges post a second time. That's right, one purchase and
two hits to that expense account. Enron could have used this system.
To date, there have been thousands of patches created for the Version 8
Matching application. That sure seems like a lot. But if I seem
disappointed, I assure you I am not. I find the new module far superior to
the old. However, if, under Version 7, you had few procedures, loose PO
policies and poor interdepartmental communication, don't think you're
going to turn on this new Matching module and it's going to fix all that.
To download a copy of this article, as well as some matching process
procedures, go to
http://www.danalytics.com/solutions/ (web site registration required),
and select the "Lawson v8 Invoice Matching" article.
2. CUE in Review
I enjoyed meeting with many of you (including some, ahem, who didn't yet
know about the LawsonGuru Letter, or those of you who were perhaps afraid to
admit it!). I'm hoping that by next year's CUE, perhaps Lawson will give me
a press pass, and I can get a seat in the front row!
Whether you attended or not, here are my observations-some good, some not so
good--on what I took back from CUE:
- Jay Coughlan's remarks were noticeably conservative, which is appropriate
in this economy. Companies that are positioned for the rebound will thrive
when it arrives; that Lawson is still around is itself an achievement. Some
people think I'm out to bash Lawson; this couldn't be further from the
truth. We all want them to thrive.
- I had the opportunity to spend some time in the Technology Lab with John
Barton and some of his colleagues, who are working on some really exciting
stuff. So significant in fact, that I predict it will change the ways you
use Lawson dramatically in the coming years. More details in an upcoming
issue.
- Many repeat sessions from last year. Some of the presenters even prefaced
their remarks by saying "if you were in this session last year, I really don't
have anything new to say?"
- No significant new product announcements this year. Last year, you
couldn't escape hearing about Lawson's Portal and related enhancements, etc.
This year, you may have thought you saw new products, but the majority were
just a re-positioning of some of the things you saw last year.
- Smart Notification was no doubt the most-touted product this year. As a
savvy LawsonGuru Letter reader, you already know that it's a strategic
product, having read about it in the
October
2002 issue.
- Some of Lawson's product offerings are still disjointed. In particular,
Process Flow, Smart Notification, and Business Component Integrator (BCI)
have many overlapping features; I'm often asked to explain the differences
between them, and which ones to deploy. Lawson needs to take a hard look at
combining these'it would make a killer product.
- By the way, Lawson needs to rename BCI. Every time I talk to someone about
BCI, they think I'm talking about BSI. The client is wondering how in the
world they are going to tackle their integration problems with payroll tax
software!
- I still get the feeling that Lawson develops in a vacuum, and they do a
poor job of painting the "the big picture" (if there really is one). In a
conversation with one of their business analysts, who admitted never having
visited a client I asked, "How on earth can you design solutions?"
- I'm not at all surprised at the lack of new products. Lawson has a huge
task ahead of it-as you know if you read the
last
issue. Upgrading 1300 clients over the
next year may be insurmountable, and scaring clients into even more upgrades
would drive them off altogether.
- Speaking of scared clients, I talked to many unhappy ones. The general
mood was lukewarm; numerous stories about botched installations, unfixed
bugs, data integrity problems, spotty support, etc. The trend I inferred was
that bigger clients get all the attention (money talks, of course; the
smaller ones get the short shrift. I consider this a corporate deficiency;
the employees of Lawson are a great bunch of people, and a pleasure to work
with. They are hard-working and honest, and are always trying to solve our
problems. I'm proud to know and work with them.
All things considered, I think it was a beneficial CUE. Despite the
depressed economy, war gloom, layoffs, etc., Lawson still knows how to throw
a party, and they're still a fun group of people. I hope you had a good
time--I did; and I've already signed up for next year!
Let me know if you agree or disagree, and/or if you have anything to add.
Email your thoughts to
mailto:letter-comments@lawsonguru.com.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
B-To-B Purchasing Card Boost
"MasterCard hopes a new system will encourage customers to make more use
of its corporate purchasing cards, giving the company a larger share of
the $32 trillion-a-year business-to-business purchasing market, says Phil Philliou,
VP of E-business and emerging technologies. A MasterCard e-P3 adapter
installed on businesses' accounts-payable and purchasing systems would
let company buyers post purchase orders on a private Web site."
Source: Information Week, April 14, 2003
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=8900033
[Ed:
Interestingly, Lawson still doesn't seem interested
in p-cards!]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3. Life After Lawson?
In last month's issue, I jokingly quoted myself (hey, it was April
Fools Day!), saying, "The world revolves around Lawson". I use this pet
phrase to explain the often-bewildering ways in which Lawson does some
things. What may appear to be a bone-headed decision may be--in Lawson's
view--the best way to do something, especially when you're seeing the
world only through Lawson's own eyes.
Several of you misread this, thinking that my consulting was limited only
to Lawson, forsaking everything else and resigning myself to a
Lawson-centered life! Rest assured that this is not the case; however I do
admit that sometimes I do become a little too "Lawson-myopic".
For a different view, let's turn to Bill McCarthy. Some of you know Bill
McCarthy, who helped manage the Lawson practice at BalraeUSC (later
netASPx). After hearing Gen. Schwarzkopf's talk about leadership at CUE, I
remembered one of the valuable lessons I learned from Bill. I was a
subcontractor to BalraeUSC, and I was rather wary of making decisions that
affected them without their management's input. After consulting Bill for
his concurrence on the umpteenth decision, he said, "John, stop asking
me--I trust you implicitly to make these decisions, which is why I put you
in charge of this project".
Bill has since moved on to a new position, and for some time he has been
telling me that there really is a life beyond Lawson-so I challenged him
to fill us in:
"I am no longer in the "Lawson World" but I enjoy reading the LawsonGuru Letters. Besides bringing back memories (including some that
are not great), it helps me focus on some things that I am doing now. I
installed Lawson full suites as PM from 1995 - 2001, but I'm currently
involved in a Siebel CRM implementation in a city with 9,000,000 clients
(citizens) and a PeopleSoft HRMS system for 900,000 employees / retirees.
The issues are different but the same.
There are no perfect systems; no ERP corporate application support that
can keep up with how all their clients use the system. What is consistent
is that things will not always work the way they are advertised,
everything needs to be upgraded regularly and often not without
significant trauma. There is no substitute for qualified people,
documented baselines and thorough testing.
When I was installing Lawson, I found that in evaluating engagements that
went well against those that didn't go so well, the single most important
factor was strong professional project management. That hasn't changed as
I have changed environments. A strong PM is a necessity and can be in the
form of a client employee, software vendor or consultant.
Having been involved in somewhere around 50 engagements, I believe in
methodology but not to the extent that it is a burden. Consistent
processes, focused people and clearly defined roles and expectations are
important. Planning and scheduling lets you know where you are at any
given time, where you thought you would be and where your problem areas
are on a week-by-week basis. Put this together with committed management
and there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Remember that a project that never has a problem isn't just a lucky fluke;
somebody knows what he or she is doing. Communicate with everyone, don't
do anything in secret, involve the immediate world and make sure there is
a leader. Never be hesitant to ask for help.
Lawson was fun but I think I graduated. New opportunities, new challenges,
same problems."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
- QUOTE OF THE ISSUE -
"True leaders give the credit and take the blame."
- Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf (Ret.) - CUE 2003
Keynote Speaker
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4. Reader feedback
Send your comments to
mailto:letter-comments@lawsonguru.com.
|
"First, I want to say I greatly appreciate your
newsletter. I found the article about Six Sigma interesting. The
problem with most of these methodologies is that we live in a world
where there is no time or money to spend on much beyond producing
whatever product we are in the business of producing. Whatever
happened to CMM? At least I think that's what it was called--great
idea, but again expensive at the bottom-line." |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Worthwhile Reading
The Six Best Practices: What Leading CIOs Do
CIO Magazine, April 1, 2003
http://www.cio.com/archive/040103/practices.html
ERP: Bulletproof No More
A security flaw in a PeopleSoft application may presage more holes in
enterprise resource planning software.
Baseline Magazine, April 2003
http://www.baselinemag.com/article2/0,3959,1007045,00.asp
America's Classic Companies
Compelling tales of creation from the entrepreneurs who've changed
American Life.
Fortune Small Business, April 2003
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/fsb/specials/greats/fsb_american_home.html
Calculating Costs of Enterprise Application Integration
Baseline Magazine, April 2003
http://www.baselinemag.com/article2/0,3959,1015909,00.asp
Don't Bridge The Business-IT Divide: Obliterate It!
EAI Journal, April 2003
http://www.eaijournal.com/Article.asp?ArticleID=679&DepartmentID=7
Sarbanes-Oxley: Tech to the Rescue?
Sarbox is just one of many new regulatory requirements companies face. Can
IT help?
CFO IT, Spring 2003
http://www.cfo.com/printarticle/0,5317,8952,00.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5. Survey: CUE
Favorites
So, if you went to CUE (or even if you didn't, and
you just heard about it from someone
who diid), what did you think?
I told you what I saw (and didn't see) at
CUE. Now, it's your turn.
Tell us about your CUE experiences. What
did you like? What didn't you like?
How about the sessions and exhibits?
The food? The night at Universal?
Did you take back a lot of new information?
Did you meet new people who work in related
industries? Did you get energized about how you can
use Lawson better? Send me your thoughts:mailto:letter-survey@lawsonguru.com
6. Lawson Tips & Tricks
Share your tips. Send them to
mailto:letter-tips@lawsonguru.com.
Moving Printer Definitions between Environments
Q: How do you dump printer definitions from one environment to another?
A: Use rngdbdump on the
printer file in GEN database.
In the source environment:
rngdbdump -c GEN printer > printer.csv
then in the target environment, use:
importdb gen printer printer.csv
You will still need to some work, i.e. set up
printer groups, etc., but at least you won't have to create all the
printers again in the new environment.
The LawsonGuru Letter is a free periodic newsletter
providing provocative commentary
on issues important to the Lawson Software
community. The LawsonGuru Letter is published by--and is solely the
opinion of--John Henley of Decision Analytics. Visit Decision Analytics at
http://www.danalytics.com.
To subscribe, send an email to:
mailto:letter-subscribe@lawsonguru.com To be removed from the subscription list, send to:
mailto:letter-unsubscribe@lawsonguru.com
© Copyright 2003, Decision Analytics. All rights reserved.
Please share The LawsonGuru Letter in whole or in part as long as copyright and attribution are always included.
Decision Analytics is an independent consultancy, focusing on Lawson
technical projects, and specializing in customization/modification, data
conversion, and integration/interfaces.
Please visit http://www.danalytics.com for more
information.
Decision Analytics. Integrating Lawson
with the Real
World.
| |