Talk:PeopleSoft

Removals

The text about peoplesoft being "known for being" anything is inappropriately subjective. Jbruder 16:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Was client-server really a new idea in 1989? Maybe just in this particular type of system? The X window system started in 1984. That's the only example I can think of off hand, but I sure there were client-server archetechures long before that. Jpkotta 06:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

PeopleSoft in use

I don't like these kind of deletions, who cares what you think is relevant? Now it's stored here at least.--Jerryseinfeld 19:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In the winter of 2003, UMass Amherst rolled out PeopleSoft's student records system. UMass released a self-service component called SPIRE, which is now the only way students can register for classes. While the initial reaction to SPIRE was favorable, over the next year people began criticizing it for its confusing user interface (UI), among other issues. An attempt to resolve some of the UI complaints over the summer of 2004 caused even more serious problems, leading to the unavailability of SPIRE for most of the first week of the Fall 2004 semester.

Columbia University began using it to track faculty and staff human resources records and allow self-service to update personal information and paystubs. With this the University ceased printing and mailing paystubs. For security purposes everyone who uses PeopleSoft must reset their UNIX password every 90 days - even though the file and email servers do not require forced password resets of any kind.

It could definitely use some trimming, and contrast with positive examples of PeopleSoft implementations.. but removal is not the answer. I replaced the two paragraphs. Rhobite 20:18, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see how a single peoplesoft customer is notable. Unless they make up a large portion of PeopleSoft's business, it's entirely not relevant. --fvw* 20:19, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

We're not talking about how Doris in HR has trouble using Excel. PeopleSoft is an enterprise package which is customized for each customer. When an entire university has a problem with the software, it deserves at least a small mention. Rhobite 21:18, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

But as you say, all of PeopleSoft's customers are this big, so this specific university isn't exceptional. I agree that the university that sued them is notable, and coalitions of angry customers are too. But those are mentioned at length, so what's the point in also mention a different university who are slightly unhappy about the way things work but not extremely upset? Unless you want to count is as a success story to achieve balance I don't see the point. --fvw* 22:39, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

Looking at this article and at this discussion, I do not understand why Columbia and UMass Amherst are even mentioned. There are over 300 higher education institutions using PeopleSoft Student Administration...and I think it's safe to say that many of them, perhaps even most, have had big problems and strong user community issues during their PeopleSoft rollout. Why do these two schools get mentioned when dozens or hundreds of others don't? Have these been added because the authors are more familiar with the details from those schools? ----dghall@pobox.com (just browsing, for now...) 06:34, 2005 Sep 28 (UTC)

Hehe . . . OK . . . and putting this further into perspective . . . Student administration is only a very small fraction of the thousands & thousands PeopleSoft product implementations world wide . . . but as long as these specific mentions remain toward the end of the definition . . . it would be expected. I edited the offshoring portion of the second section to appropriately reflect the negative impact on the US & European consulting industries as opposed to having only the positive impact to India represented. MFS (January 2006)

UMass Lowell uses a service made by PeopleSoft called ISIS, and we hate it here, too.129.63.64.80 04:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't understand why this hatchet job is reserved for a tiny number of PeopleSoft implementations. Some of the comments seem uniformed or ill-informed. Just as one example from above - PeopleSoft doesn't impose a requirement to change passwords every 90 days - although many would argue that's a sensible security measure.

I had a look at the Wiki entry for SAP - there have been examples of failed implementations and litigation involving SAP but none are listed - why is that?

As to the "we hate it too" comment, with the greatest of respect, you may be seeing software that by the time it has been rolled out to you, bears no resemblence to PeopleSoft, and may be operating in a way it was never intended to.

Similar problems with cluttered gui, complicated user workflow experienced in UWaterloo intern placement matching system called "Jobmine" 72.136.11.148 05:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Both Jobmine and Quest SA are using the exact same codebase. A simple removal of the frameset container and some twicking of URL parameters are sufficient to reveal such fact.

People have had many, many, many problems with all modules of PeopleSoft at the University of Western Ontario too going as far back as the late 1990s. Not only Student Administration, but Human Resources, Finance, Payroll, Pension, all modules of PeopleSoft are being used there. The only reason nobody outside of the university has heard about them officially is that the place is run almost like the George Bush administration. Nobody dares speak because the administration knows what a folly it has been to go with PeopleSoft and now having spent millions of dollars they cannot back down. They have dug their heels, stubbornly refuse to listen to logic and systematically put down any criticism. So, to answer the friend who asks why only two organizations were mentioned, maybe it's because nobody else has had the guts to speak up for fear of losing their jobs. I'm retired now so I can speak more freely. RoomService 08:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

All sizeable implementations face these risks. I don't know why PeopleSoft has been singled out for this hatchet job when Oracle, SAP and others have just as much of a trail of failed (and for that matter, successful) implementations - with similar issues around people keeping quiet so as to keep their jobs. I don't believe PeopleSoft is significantly worse than any other ERP Software - it isn't perfect, but neither is any alternative package. 81.151.212.42 18:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW it would be helpful to know what the outcome of the lawsuit was 81.151.212.42 18:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Added a comment in an attempt to set the "In Use" section in proper context. PeopleSoft's various modules are in use in thousands of organisations worldwide, but a few US Universities and Colleges experienced problems. Litigation and problems are not the sole preserve of Peoplesoft so I'm not even sure why they are mentioned, the SAP pages don't mention any failed inmplementations and litigation, yet I know for sure that such events have occurred. Is it really relevant and important to mention a single implementation? Ukurko 17:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I put all the external links that were really refs in-line. Unfortunately, only the criticism section is properly referenced; the early sections weren't supported by the external links, as far as I could see. Still needed: refs. for the early sections, some examples of successful, underbudget, on-schedule implementations, some specific technical problems with implementations. HLHJ (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Removal

I believe some information in the "Product Design" section should be removed as they are incorrect or misleading.

"moved from the traditional client-server based design to web-centric design" No, they just wrote some web interface; most backend infrastructure remains unchanged.

"PeopleSoft Internet Architecture(PIA)" Or you mean database-driven web-based applications, which have been in existance since the days of CGI?

"It successfully weathered architectural changes from client-server to the internet due to its innovative meta-database design." Either elaborate, or remove this line, please. Without much verifiable source, this just looks like a vapour-ware promotion.

"Once mastered, the PeopleTools development platform allows for rapid development and deployment." Says who? See counter evidence in "External Links" on the article page.

"A benefit of the technology is that all the code which makes up a module can be customized to suit the owner’s business needs." How about we also quote the California State Auditor report:

"Often, modifications then must be reapplied each time PeopleSoft releases a new version of the CMS software, adding potentially significant maintenance costs to reapply, test, and implement the modifications."? (p.p71)

"This trend of Offshore Development" Offshoring and outsourcing are different things. Since no plants are built in India for tangible Peoplesoft products, "outsourcing" should be a more appropriate term.

response

"No, they just wrote some web interface; most backend infrastructure remains unchanged." It is true that the development environment remains similar, but there were significant changes to reflect the changed environment, too. There's a simple reason for that - it didn't need to change - most of the things we need to do in a development environment aren't any different if the end user is using a web browser. We need different controls on a page, we may need to hide or display some objects, validate data entered,and so on. A valid comparison would be with Microsoft's Visual Basic development environment versus Visual Studio .NET - there are significant diffences but also some very similar areas. "they just wrote some web interface" seems to imply the approach taken by PeopleSoft and other ERP vendors in the early days of web-enablement. This invloved downloading and running a Java applet in the browser which then allowed the existing client-server app to run in a web browser. PeopleSoft PIA is much more than that - much more akin to developing in .net

As for the the comment about customisations and California State - it is 100% true you have to re-apply customisations. This is true for all software so why is it considered noteworthy in connection with PeopleSoft? What have people got against PeopleSoft in comparison with, say SAP? 86.144.207.140 11:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: product design

I have put this back with comment about rapid deployment removed. Whilst rapid deployment is undoubtedly possible, I agree that it's also possible to deploy PeopleSoft in a slow and defective manner, just like any other software, so this comment probably wasn't helpful. As for the rest, I've made some comments above. I have worked with PeopleSoft for ten years and fail to see what is misleading or inaccurate - perhaps you could elaborate from your detailed knowledge of the product rather just deleting what was a useful background (IMHO of course) 86.135.98.170 12:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Noteworthy innuendo

I have reverted an edit from about a month ago which claimed, "it is noteworthy that Oracle's CEO Ellison - as the trial progressed - made a donation of $10,000 to Senator Boxer". (I had not ever looked at this article before; this was called to my attention by a non-Wikipedia correspondent who was reading the article.)

Three problems with this, all major:

1. "it is noteworthy" is a violation of Wikipedia style. Don't tell the reader that your fact is more important than other facts.
2. The placement of the information creates a suggestion that Ellison's donation to Boxer was relevant to the outcome of the case. This amounts to a charge of bribery, a blatant violation of WP:BLP; only the extreme latitude allowed by U.S. law in comments on public figures keeps this from being potentially libelous.
3. There isn't even a citation for the fact that the donation even occurred. Now, if the donation occurred, and if there is some sense in which it can be shown to be important in and of itself, that might belong in the article on Ellison, possibly in the article on Boxer, but unless a reliable source ties that to the PeopleSoft case, it has absolutely no place in the article on PeopleSoft.

Jmabel | Talk 22:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Product Design

I have removed an insertion "However, the difficulty inherent in dealing with a proprietary platform has led to many failed or failing implementations of the PeopleSoft products due to the learning curve associated with it."

This is just heresay. One could just as easily make a perfectly valid comment that many implementations have been successful. I say again - why are people so very keen to hijack wikipedia as Peoplsoft gripe site? PeopleSoft is ERP software - like SAP, Oracle (applications) etc, they all have these issues. Trying to paint a negative picture is not helpful and I don't believe it's in the sprit of Wikipedia.

Ukurko 21:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

attempted deletion

Someone, probably in ignorance, attempted to delete the article under a speedy for spam. apparently they did not read the article. I removed the tag. (and did a small cleanup). Possibly the description of the system components is still a little too detailed. However, specific references are still need, not just the general ones at the bottom. DGG 23:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I note that the speedy was placed by Touken, a ed. with only two edits. His other one is an attempt to justify a deleted article on People-trakDGG 23:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

External links

I've removed two links from the article. One was simply a link to a six day old ultra low content blog, the other to a "peoplesoft alumni network" which seems useless in the context of building on the article. If there are concerns, please note them here before re-adding the links. Kuru ^talk 02:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with your conclusions - alumni group is how former employees of the company can find each other today, over 2,000 members. If it was relevant enough to be included in a book on the company, it would seem to be relevant here.

RE: product design

I removed the following sentence as it doesn't make any sense

"With Release 9.0 Peoplesoft's largest CRM is been released since 8.0." Ukurko (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Criticism

I have removed (twice) the criticism section. No other ERP software provider has such a section on Wikipedia and I believe this was just added by someone with an profoundly anti-PeopleSoft agenda. Whatever the gripes of customers and users, I think this contravenes NPV, and I also seriously question the usefulness of it - if you feel so strongly, join the facebook groups maybe even start a gripe site, but don't pollute this page with your moaning, please.

Ukurko (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur that devoting roughly a third of the article to criticism is not balanced; there seems to be some cherry-picking of implementations here. Some of it is quite poorly sourced as well; not that the rest of the article is in better shape. A concise paragraph of well sourced and notable material would probably suffice.

Please note that I disabled the "UnUkurko" account as being an unacceptable username. I would encourage the anonymous editor to create a new account and for both parties to continue the discussion here before reverting again. Kuru ^talk 23:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been back a few times and this now seems to have settled down again. Let me lay my cards on the table - I am a former PeopleSoft employee with more than ten years experience implementing (although not Student Admin). I'd love to overhaul the entire article, but finding reliable source material to link to is difficult, the more so now Peoplesoft doesn't exist as a separate company any longer. I wonder if there is scope for splitting the corporation from the software. It's obvious that Student admin hasn't always been PeopleSoft's finest hour, but implementing Student and Government systems is extremely difficult to do well and PeopleSoft is far from uniquein attracting adverse criticism. What many of these gripes don't make clear is that the faults are often nothing at all to do with the software and everything to do with the implementors. I can't find any reliable stats for the proportion of PeopleSoft installed user base that is Student Admin, but knowing the "PeopleSoft World" as I do, I know it's tiny. Maybe splitting the pages would allow a page for the SA applications with the attendant comments about implementations, if they are really necessary, but I don't see any reference in the SAP (a competitor software corporation) wiki pages to their failed implementations.

Ukurko (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps because there were many more PeopleSoft associated mishaps than with their competitors? All of the customers etc for all of these companies have probably equal access to wikipedia, and the fact that only PeopleSoft is getting this treatment is notable in itself. While the section is too long, the criticism exists and should be noted. SiegeLord (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A source supporting this assertion would be appreciated. Note that a random list of complaints and the above odd logic do not support this. If you need help understanding how to acquiring references and avoiding original research, please ask. Kuru ^talk 01:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Then change the assertion. Removal of any mention of criticism is not the right solution to this concern. Criticism exists and is associated with this particular company, and it should be included in this article. Just because its competitors do not have such section is no reason for this article not have one. It is a failure of those articles that they do not mention the associated critical sources for their respective systems, not a failure of this one that it does. I'll see if I can write a statement that is more inline with those articles. SiegeLord (talk) 03:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, you win, I don't get why people are so determined to hijack wikipdia as a gripe site for a set of applications that by any measuremnt are a tiny part of PeopleSoft's worldwide customer base but I'm giving up now. I suspect the reason why SAP etc don't have similar gripe sections is that they have more active lawyers monitoring this place, rather than their software being any better - I know for certain of at least one high profile case of SAP litigation. Ukurko (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because--10 years into implementation--I get messages like this from admin: "We understand that five days is undesirably long to update one's email list subscription. However, we have been tasked with using PeopleSoft as the database of record for subscription changes. Unfortunately, this means information cannot automatically be fed into the database, but needs to be entered by hand." That kind of problem really puts the software into a class of its own in deserving criticism. Phytism (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You are undoubtedly right that your organisation's implementation of PeopleSoft is resulting in some crazy business processes - but ask yourself if these are really software issues. I say again - why do people want to turn Wikipedia into a PeopleSoft gripe site? take a look at this report of Los Angeles schools failing SAP implementation http://blogs.zdnet.com/projectfailures/?p=431 or this one of Arizona State University's failed Oracle Apps implementation http://blogs.zdnet.com/projectfailures/?p=412 now ask yourself seriously - could it be that all ERP software suites can be subject to this? So why single out PeopleSoft? Ukurko (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why Oracle and SAP aren't getting the same treatment. I don't encounter their software (or dysfunctional implementations caused by them), so I have no opinion. It's interesting to see recent blogs (the correct venue!) from Palo Alto, where both PS and SAP have a major presence (and Oracle is up the road a bit). The school district was planning to move from one vendor to the other; blog commenters argued over which vendor is the most evil and makes the worst software. So there are places where you can find balanced fights among the companies. Phytism (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Consider removal of DoD planned implementation

• • • TO WHOEVER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS ARTICLE ***

Please consider removing the 2004 report on the planned implementation for the DoD. Given that PeopleSoft was acquired around that time, can we really trust this article? If there are more articles about the DoD project, then put them up. Otherwise, assume no such project exists and delete the section.

Just a suggestion. 66.117.135.137 (talk) 06:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Disservice to the readers

The article fails to convey the 'decrepit-ness' (for lack of a better word) of the PeopleSoft architecture. Readers should know for example that the PeopleCode language advertises itself as object oriented when in fact any knowledgable java programmer will tell you that it is one of the most adhoc object based language in existence. The SQR language is similarly awkward and hard to use/re-use. Same goes for the App-Engine framework. The software suite is just not up to par with modern 3GL languages. Granted a savvy enough customer can sometimes self-organize enough to prevent catastrophic failures but that is not a good reason to use a product. The product is in my professional opinion severly lacking in extensiblity and design. It should not be used and where it is already being used it should be replaced.

Note: I really don't have an agenda. I am just familiar with better thought out software systems. I want to be constructive and helpful to the companies using PeopleSoft but those companies really would be better off without PeopleSoft...sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.137.180.8 (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with the above criticism of PeopleSoft software by 134.137.180.8 (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC).

From my 45-year professional experience in Computer Science (that includes system design and programming in various languages), it is quite surprising that the software that is so much behind (its notoriety for security problems seems indicative of the quality of the design) is still in common use, today.

172.88.206.28 (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

You clearly do have an agenda - and your conflation of what you call "decrepit-ness" with the idea that it is in some way hard to prevent what you describe as catastrophic failures is at best a gross exageration. For those organisations (and there are many) still running quite happily with PeopleSoft, your contention that it should be removed ASAP makes no logical sense at all. It's true that PeopleCode doesn't look or behave like java but it wasn't meant to - it's probably closer to Visual Basic - are you advocating companies ditch Microsoft products too? I agree there are better thought out systems, but there are far worse ones still in active use too.

Ukurko (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

PeopleSoft makes extensive use of Java as well by the way - I'm sorry that someone appears to have asked you to carry out some programming work in an area which you have found beyond you, but many Companies are still using PeopleSoft every day and there is even still a thriving PeopleSoft developer community. I note from the author's talk page that they have been banned for vandalism of articles, so I'm now not even sure their comments were even made in earnest.Ukurko (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Results of Copy Edit

After extensive work, I have found some areas which are outside the scope of a simple copy edit, but which need improvement. The tone of the article varies greatly between chearleading, criticism, and trivia. The first two both reveal a bias, which is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. The latter tone is also inappropriate, simply because the purpose of the article should be to educate, rather than bore with a sales pitch (I, for one, find it very dull to know if the software supports an obsolete system I've never heard of). I've done what I can to clean this up, but an editor with more experience in NPOV and interesting probably should take a look.

On a different note, the 'PeopleSoft in Use' section is worthless. The first part is simply a giant list of Oracle press release (read propaganda). This is boring, absolutely devoid of actual information, and ugly. Someone with detailed knowledge of the product, please go back and try to make an actual paragraph out of that. The second list is even worse, with a half-assed not-really citation. I want to delete it. I might come back later.

Also, yes, a giant software conglomerate suite has problems. Its worth noting the major ones that result in real consequences (being sued, being investigated), but software costing money, or not allowing Joe P. Freshman to register the first time? This is not noteworthy. Its complaining.

Finally, please sign your comments in the talk page with four ~, so at least dates can be recorded. RevZoe (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Split article

This article seems to have a strong degree of multiple-personality disorder. It starts off talking about PeopleSoft the company, but then spends much of its time discussing PeopleSoft the platform. Granted, when a company exists almost exclusively for a single product/platform, one would expect to find information about both. But the two are separate entities, as evidenced by the fact that the platform is still sold even though the company has been assimilated.

Further complicating this is the fact that the article links to itself: under Timeline, the 1988 entry links to PeopleSoft HRMS -- which redirects back to the same article, a violation of WP:LINK.

I'm inclined to think that there should be two articles, one on the company, the other on the product. However, once the product information is mostly stripped from the company article, there may not be enough to warrant maintaining a separate article for it, in which case it might simply be better served as a section in the Oracle article. Regardless, the product certainly deserves a full article, and there is far more information to be had than is available here. EJSawyer (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Failures

The article lacks any mention of how notoriously bad the flagship product was - it cost RMIT $47M. 150.101.52.48 (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That is true.

172.88.206.28 (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe because the details of the RMIT inplementation you linked to as described in that article are repeatedly described as poor planning and implementation. Not a single mention is made of the software being "notoriously bad". Student Admin was never a "flagship product" - it was a tiny proportion of PeopleSoft's user base and income. Ukurko (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)