Need toughts on approach. Client moving to Maconomy/Business Objects

Question

Post Author: klokhammer
CA Forum: General Feedback
Hi.On of our important clients are most likely to migrate between economy systems within the next 9 months. Case as follows:
We have developed a budgeting/forecast and reporting system for a certain market/company. The solution is based on a Microsoft SQL 2000 database/server with Microsoft Access as application interface. The solution is integrated and gets actual figures from the economy system Aspect on a IBM iSeries (AS400) system. The "edge" of the system lies in sophisticated budgeting/forecast routines, the report module is rather poor....
The client is now most likely to migrate to Maconomy as the new economy system, and Maconomy AnalytiX as the new BI system (which I understand uses Business Objects.)
We are new to Business Objects and need general recommendations on what level we should try to integrate on. Should we "ditch" all the development done in Access and build a new solutions through Business Objects, keeping all the business logics, but not the interface?
Should we try to integrate on a database level, keeping the interface in Access (for budgeting/forecast), and exporting data into Business Objects to allow reporting through Maconomy AnalytiX?
As you most likely have understood, my knowledge about Business Objects are pretty poor. But please try to give me your thoughts on how we should move along, and what kind of "standard" considerations we must have in mind.
Kind regardsklokhammer

Answer 1

Post Author: jsanzone
CA Forum: General Feedback
klokhammer,
I checked out Macanomy's web site and searched for references to Business Objects, and sure enough it is mentioned here and there.  What it sounds like is that Macanomy has developed some "Macanomy Standard Reports" using BusObjects, so if you want these nifty Macanomy reports available to you, you buy the Macanomy product, which is bundled w/ BusObjects, and voila you have the reports.  It sounds like a winning strategy.  On the other hand, in order to get this type of capability, an organization would have to hire a staff to purchase and install Business Objects, then the staff would have to understand the financial database that the client has established and populated, and then the staff would have to set about building the reports that are needed.  With Macanomy, it seems that you get the whole kit and kaboodle in one swoop, which is good for an organization providing that it is on the same wave-length as Macanomy.  In regards to your question about what to do with your existing infrastructure, this is a call only you and your client can make.  In IT, it's always about the data and how it is used.  Peeling back the onion a bit, the process works like this:  in order for the Macanomy reports to work, the report must be properly built and it must read from a "universe", which is a BusObjects term for defining the interface between the user and the database (the meta data process).  In order for the universe to exist, it must be built by a "Universe Designer".   The Universe Designer must have an intracate knowledge of how every table in the database will be used to support the reports that the end-user wants to have (either pre-canned (standard) or ad hoc capability).  The database is still a critical piece, and reviewing the Macanomy offering I have a funny feeling that they come in with their own database structure and universe, which makes their process a much quicker install.  The downside, as it appears to me, is how you would migrate your existing data into the Macanomy structure (this goes back to the two parties being on the same wavelength).  I think in your case it's going to be a matter of ditching your database structure in MS SQL 2000 and Access, and adopting the Macanomy structure, but this may be more painful to do than any one at this point realizes.  It sounds like you need to continue arming yourself with knowledge before making any final decisions.  Good luck, and perhaps keep all of us posted on your experiences.