Through daily use of Epicor, it is apparent that at it's basest level, it favors a stock-based manufacturing model (your company has established SKUs and Production works to replenish stock levels when a KANBAN or other system triggers a re-order point). While it excels at that, ours is a custom-order industrial manufacturing model (we produce to customer specification or repeat orders), meaning there is no stocking of finished components, only the materials it takes to make them. It's taken some finesse (and the purchase of additional modules) to get to where we need to be.
I think it depends on the industry and complexity of the company. In our situation, we primarily use Epicor for financials, in a relatively simple manner. I don't think that Epicor is the most intuitive or simple to set up for our situation. I think Epicor is better suited for its target industry of manufacturing, where building out the multiple layers let's Epicor's strengths come to bear.
In Application Studio, there are quite a few things that you just have to know in order to really get it to work right. Such as when you are updating a dataview you have to save them refresh and then go back to the wizard to get the added fields that you may have added from a BAQ.
When running MRP it has a tendency to stall or not finish on occasion. This is a problem as we do not get any PO Suggestions when this happens.
There is always room for improvement! I've used Great Plains ERP/MS Dynamics and Epicor my entire career. both do some things really well. Both could learn from each other. The KInetic user interface is much better than the classic windows overall. Please keep adding more functionality to the core financials!!! You need the accountants to be on your side.
If the answer to your problem is not readily available in an answer book, your response or solution will take months, if you get one at all. Problems need to be sent to support and duplicated by them before they try to fix it. This is extremely frustrating because you have to prove to Epicor that you are having an issue. If by some miracle you get by this barrier, your problem is submitted to development for review. You can't speak to them or communicate in any way directly. This group appears to be completely unconcerned about user issues or customer service. Our experiences have been negative across the board.
Epicor CMS had a UI that was deemed more aesthetically pleasing than (subjective, naturally!) Sage, for which we attended a presentation/orientation session. Our Team felt Epicor (once outfitted with the necessary add-ons) would be better suited in the long run for longevity and ongoing support (especially considering our outgoing software was Sage).
Most of my histories with SAP directly. I didn't really have any negative experiences. The only thing I could say is that I always had to go to somebody else to solve the problem that I can solve first person now with Epicor Kinetic.
Using the word Scalability usually implies an increase of use, or adding the use of other features. Making the product put to good/proper use for small companies without the need for full-time support, whilst integrity is maintained it is an entirely different topic. In my view, the current company may have acquired a full truck with options, where initially a small pick-up may have been better suited.
Epicor has necessitated dedicated "Staging" personnel, as multi-line orders are generated as individual orders to Production/Manufacturing, meaning someone must ensure they all come together upon completion prior to shipping.
Payroll and Accounts Payable/Receivable have noted improved integration and tracking compared to the legacy/outgoing software (Business Vision).
Inventory tracking is vastly improved over the outgoing software, with detailed reports/tracking of remnant/off-cut materials, which benefits Material Handlers as well as the Purchasing Manager for keeping the inventory budget in line with targets.
