LinkedIn Twitter Facebook

Ben Kepes is a technology evangelist, an investor, a commentator and a business adviser. His business interests include a diverse range of industries from manufacturing to property to technology. As a technology commentator he has a broad presence both in the traditional media and extensively online. Ben covers the convergence of technology, mobile, ubiquity and agility, all enabled by the Cloud. His areas of interest extend to enterprise software, software integration, financial/accounting software, platforms and infrastructure as well as articulating technology simply for everyday users.

More about Ben here.

One response to “Zuora Partners With a Host of Mid Market Financial Vendors”

  1. Hariet

    Ben,This is definitely not a qtosuien of size or functional richness. a0 I think we should separate a few concepts here:Breadth of functionality i.e. the major business processes a system supports, such as financials, projects, human resources, CRM, manufacturing, supply chain management.etc. When you do most of this in an integrated fashion, you have an ERP system, and in that respect, I can accept the first Wikipedia quote. But the rest of the Wikipedia article is quite a joke: accounting and payroll does not make a system ERP .a0 Crowdsourcing is great, but expertise does not hurt, either: we have to know when to rely on Wikipedia as a source.Fully featured to me also includes the richness of functionality within those modules, and is not necessarily a criteria for an ERP system. Intacct was originally a financial package, but as the extended to order entry, inventory ..etc, it is now taking the shape of an ERP-like offering but I would think NetSuite is functionally richer in most of those areas, outside Intacct s core competency, accounting. And SAP is certainly functionally richer than NetSuite, yet they all can be labeled ERP.High End, Size, Price these have nothing to do with being considered ERP.a0 Netbooks is (was?) a solution for very small businesses:a0 it pretty much covered most business functions (roles), albeit with not much flexibility, customization options within those areas.a0 (Too bad they are back ).a0Finally, the ERP moniker is a valid one, albeit it’s fading out it seems to have the stigma of the 90 s reminding us of expensive, long, sometimes failed implementations, qtosuienable ROI.a0 No wonder the major ERP players no longer refer to themselves as such.a0 The only reason the term is still used is that for upcoming players it’s still the simplest way to claim we’re no longer a single-function company In the end it’s all about meeting business requirements, whatever the label is