Difference in Cloud ERP Systems – A comparison

DEGREE PROJECT IN INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY, SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN 2017

Difference in Cloud ERP Systems ? A comparison

DANIEL SNELLMAN

KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SCHOOL OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY

Difference in Cloud ERP Systems ? A comparison

Daniel Snellman

2017

Master degree thesis at KTH ICT Examiner: Prof. Mihhail Matskin Industrial Supervisor: Fredrik H?kansson

1

Abstract

Enterprise Resource Planning systems are today the backbone for many companies. To collect business data from different department into one single database and let employees generate reports from that simplifies business processes. Cloud computing is growing and begins to step into businesses and companies more and more. The better and more tested the cloud systems gets the more companies will gain trust for the clouds. This is fundamental for starting to store sensitive corporation data and information in cloud services. Traditional ERP systems are hosted locally at each company where themselves need to maintain the system. Since cloud computing grow the ERP also start to be developed as cloud applications. By take away the responsibilities of maintaining hardware from the companies the cloud based ERP system is on an upward trend. This thesis contains a comparison of a couple of different cloud ERP systems. Almost all systems are structured by either 2-tier or 3-tier architecture, the different is mainly the number of messages that is sent between each layer and where the computation occurs. This, and other areas are compared in this thesis. How each system is structured and the strengths and weaknesses for each system is the main part of this thesis. Systems from SAP, Oracle, Microsoft, Infor and NetSuite are included in this thesis. Based on the different structures different systems suits different requirements better, a recommendation for how to think when choosing a cloud ERP system is included in this thesis.

2

Sammanfattning

Aff?rssystem ?r idag en ryggrad i de flesta f?retag. Genom att kunna sammanf?ra information och data fr?n olika avdelningar och olika processer i en och samma databas och sedan kunna skapa rapporter och analyser fr?n detta. Genom att ge anst?llda m?jligheten att skapa rapporter p? samma data och ?ven i realtid ?kar man sannolikheten till b?ttre aff?rsbeslut. Eftersom molntj?nster ?r en upp?tg?ende trend b?rjar ?ven f?retag f? upp ?gonen f?r detta och desto b?ttre och mer pr?vade systemen blir stiger ?ven f?rtroende f?r dessa. Detta g?r att f?retag kan v?ga b?rja spara k?nslig f?retagsinformation i molntj?nsterna. Traditionella aff?rssystem k?rs lokalt vid f?retaget och beh?ver underh?llas utav f?retaget sj?lva. Eftersom molntj?nster har vuxit och blivit mer vanliga har ?ven aff?rssystemen b?rjat utvecklas f?r molntj?nster. Genom att systemutvecklarna tar ?ver ansvaret f?r h?rdvara, servrar och ?ven applikationerna ger detta mer tid f?r annat ?t f?retaget och har d?rf?r f?tt en upp?tg?ende trend. Den h?r uppsatsen j?mf?r olika moln baserade aff?rssystem. De flesta systemen ?r strukturerade p? en 2- eller 3- lager arkitektur, skillnaden ?r mestadels hur m?nga meddelanden som skickas mellan de olika lagerna och var alla ber?kningar g?rs. Detta ?r j?mf?rt i denna uppsats, den g?r igenom hur olika system ?r strukturerade och j?mf?r styrkor och svagheter f?r varje system. System som ?r inkluderade ?r fr?n SAP, Oracle, Microsoft, Infor och NetSuite. Baserat p? de olika strukturerna olika system passar olika krav b?ttre, en rekommendation p? viktigare punkter att t?nka p? vid ett beslut f?r vilket system man ska satsa p? ?r inkluderad i uppsatsen.

3

Acknowledgement

I would like to take the opportunity to thank my family for all their support, and especially my mother for all their support both during the work with this thesis and during my whole time at KTH. I also want to express my gratitude to Daniel, Dennis, Joakim and Douglas for all good study session through the years. I would like to thank all the teacher and staff at KTH for their help and teach during my time at KTH. Finally, I would like to say thank you to my examiner prof. Mihhail Matskin for his comments on this work and both my supervisor at Scania, Fredrik H?kansson and Mikeal Stenroth for all guidance.

4

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download