Sunkist

Sunkist Grows with Microsoft Dynamics NAV.

Sunkist Growers Interview

Sunkist Growers owns the leading international citrus brand. Founded in 1893, the billion-dollar a year organization is a not-for-profit marketing cooperative, owned by and operated for thousands of family farmers growing citrus in California and Arizona. The oldest continually operating citrus cooperative in the U.S., and one of the largest marketing cooperatives in the world’s fruit and vegetable industry, its members have joined forces to produce high-quality Sunkist® fruit for national and international distribution.

A socially progressive company, Sunkist symbolizes high standards in the area of sustainability and community involvement. Sustainability efforts include the use of recycled and recyclable packaging materials; environmentally-friendly packaging; integrated pest management which uses good insects to eliminate harmful ones; creation of by-products to minimize waste; and leveraging efficient clean energy sources and practices. In the community, Sunkist has offered the Bodine-Sunkist scholarship since 1985 to families involved in California or Arizona agriculture. To date, over 275 scholarships have been awarded, many to students who are the first in their families to attend college.

Sunkist’s implementation team, consisting of Corporate Controller Heidi Wechsler (HW); Director of Planning & Analysis Gerry Szeman (GS) and ERP Applications Manager Greg Ross (GR), sat down with SCS for an in-depth interview about their Microsoft Dynamics NAV solution – why they chose it and what the implementation was really like.

The Situation

After five years on a Tier 1 ERP, Sunkist decided it was time to seek out a more cost-effective solution for running their business. Heidi Wechsler and Gerry Szeman were with Sunkist during the prior ERP implementation.

Q: What was going on at Sunkist that propelled the decision to look for a new ERP solution?

GS: There was a lot of tension between the CFO and IT over the years because of the cost of the system. Everything from the implementation to ongoing support…it was all just too costly.

HW: For the prior year-long implementation, and then for another year post implementation, we had several consultants here onsite. Although Gerry and I were dedicated to the implementation full time – we even had to backfill our positions – our IT was not involved in the implementation at all.

Q: So the reason you decided to move away from the prior ERP was because of cost?

HW: The key driver was cost, but also we really couldn’t see ourselves making the system have any more functionality than it currently did. It was just too costly to implement anything new. We were afraid to make changes to the interfaces ourselves. We didn’t have good documentation, and while there was some understanding of the interfaces, no one wanted to touch them for fear of breaking them. If we broke them, we’d have to pay consulting fees once again to fix them.

"So SCS came in and it was apparent that they knew our business. I loved that when they came out, they brought several people that specialized in different areas; people who could answer all of our questions. For me, that was a turning point. I felt like we found a partner we could work with, that knows their stuff."

GS: We were afraid to make any changes, but of course the business continued to change, so that was a big limitation.

GR: Implementing anything new in the system was very expensive. If we wanted to add cash management or something like that, it was a big deal to implement the additional functionality.

The Selection Process

Sunkist was very methodical about the selection process. A great deal of research was done; they leveraged Gartner to see what type of system would fit their needs, and in the end, an extensive RFP was created.

Q: How did Microsoft Dynamics NAV enter the picture?

GR: Based on Gartner’s Magic Quadrant, we sent the RFP to the top 5 vendors. Then we did proofs of concept on the ones that responded. We set up test beds, bought limited user licenses, set up servers…. We really wanted to get a feel for the applications, so we set up trials and started playing around with them. Once we did our preliminary investigation, we contacted the companies to get more information.

GS: We knew we didn’t need a tier 1 product anymore, so the focus was on what our needs were. Initially we were looking at the AX product, but when we sold the products division, we realized we didn’t need the functionality from a processed products standpoint, so it allowed us to look at NAV more closely.

HW: Our CFO at the time knew of another co-op, who used NAV and suggested that we talk to them. He said they do pool accounting, which was something we wanted to be able to do if we ever brought our legacy system on board. So speaking with the other co-op was one of the factors that sold us. They were a large co-op successfully using the system, so we knew we could use NAV, given our business and our requirements.

Q: What were some of Sunkist’s system requirements?

ALL: Produce financials by division, AR/AP, consolidations, budgets, fixed assets, automatic bank reconciliations, foreign subsidiaries….

GR: …and interfaces. Interfaces in general were a big deal because we have a lot of touch points to our system: the sales system, banking, currency conversion rates, payroll, our AS 400…. disparate systems. We needed something that could really interface well with other systems.

HW: Also, we wanted a system that could mirror our current structure.

GS: We didn’t want to change a lot going over to a new system. We wanted a system that could accept what we do for a smoother, easier transition onto the new system. And we knew we wanted to keep it in-house as well; that we would not have a lot of staff to hold people’s hands and show them this new structure, so it was important to us to keep the same chart of accounts and our line of business structure.

HW: Basically, our requirements were pretty extensive. We automated a lot of our processes and it streamlined our staff. So we couldn’t jump from the prior ERP to a system that was any less robust in terms of what we could do because we weren’t going to be able to hire more staff. We couldn’t go back on efficiency in any way. It would have defeated the purpose of bringing down the cost of the system.
Orange fields

Q: And why did you go with SCS as your implementation partner?

HW: We initially saw NAV with another partner, but we just weren’t comfortable with them. They came across like a big consultancy group, and we just didn’t feel like they were hearing us or that they really understood our business. In selecting a partner to go with, it’s really all about the way it’s presented, how they take the time to answer your questions, taking time with you, listening to you….

GS: It’s indicative of how the project is going to go. If they are not listening, if you are not getting the feeling that this is a company that is going to work well with us on this implementation, then it’s not a good fit.

HW: So SCS came in and it was apparent that they knew our business. I loved that when they came out, they brought several people that specialized in different areas; people who could answer all of our questions. For me, that was a turning point. I felt like we found a partner we could work with, that knows their stuff. They have worked with companies like ours so they have that experience. SCS knows our business probably better than any other organization we could have worked with. When we had additional questions, they followed up and always got back to us with answers.

The Implementation

Having gone through an extensive Tier-1 implementation, the team at Sunkist knew the level of planning that would be necessary to ensure a smooth implementation. Their implementation of Dynamics NAV was an example of best practices in action.

Q: So, how did the implementation go? Did it disrupt business?

GS: There was no disruption to our business – nothing of any consequence, at least.

HW: Our planning and experience helped minimize the disruption. In this implementation, we had much more participation in the decision making process in every phase.

Q: What were some of the key success factors for the Dynamics NAV implementation?

GR: In addition to planning, every user was required to do extensive testing.

HW: Each user had to spend 6 hours on the system in the test room every week. As a result, there wasn’t a knowledge gap when we went live. People were well rehearsed and they knew the system by the time we went live. In fact, the budget we had for training after go-live was never used. Critrus grouping

GS: Getting buy-in inside Sunkist and having management backing were also key success factors. We had other departments come in and do testing on the system to give them exposure and get their buy-in; and with the mandatory testing for all users, we had executive leadership camped out in the test room all day, which really showed how important this project was to the company.

HW: And for SCS’s part, their team was great, which of course aided in the success of the implementation. Angie has been super in working with us from the very beginning. She and the others we have worked with – Ken, Abhi, Don – have proven themselves to be very knowledgeable and they have been very responsive as well. With Angie, even over the weekends! She really made herself available.

Q: And the go-live? How did that go?

HW: The actual go-live was isolated to a single weekend. We brought the data in on Friday and we started validating data on Saturday. We didn’t even work a full day on Sunday.

GR: It went very smoothly. I think data conversion played a big part. SCS trained us on how to run the XML ports and do data conversion, so we did it several times. My experience with tier 1 systems was that it takes a lot of effort to get the data into the system; so you typically run it many times. It proves your data and allows you to benchmark how long it takes you to get it live. So, I had an idea of how long it would take us to get the system up on go-live.

Q: How did the Dynamics NAV implementation differ from your prior implementation?

GS: Obviously cost, but also with the NAV implementation, Heidi and I didn’t have to be as involved, so we didn’t have to backfill our positions. And it didn’t require anywhere near the number of outside consultants to get the system up and running. We only have one SCS consultant working with us.

HW: But with the NAV implementation, Sunkist IT was very involved, which was a switch. We have much more ownership of our system.

GR: From the beginning, the idea was not to over customize the system. Customizations that required code changes were thoughtfully reviewed and discussed and done only if essential.

The Benefits

Leaving a tier 1 system meant that productivity was not likely to improve drastically, but certainly it could not decrease either! Sunkist found that the benefits of the Dynamics NAV solution had to do with more than just productivity gains.

Q: What benefits have you seen as a result of switching to Dynamics NAV?

GR: Significant cost savings, for sure. Our prior ERP environment was made up of an ERP manager, two analysts, a database administrator, and a technical resource. We also had monthly hosting costs. With NAV, which we brought in-house, we only have an ERP manager and a finance analyst, so we need fewer resources to maintain the system. Even on the operations side, we haven’t had to add additional headcount.

HW: Our team, in general, finds NAV much easier to use; more user-friendly. It makes sense to them; there’s less clicking around the system to find things; there is more information on a page; it’s easier to customize a page…. A lot of this could have been done in our previous system, but it was either too costly or people didn’t know how to do it themselves, and it wasn’t easy to tell them how. We weren’t expecting to get additional functionality by switching to NAV, it was just about cost and getting something less cumbersome. Before, just setting up a vendor took several screens where you had to set up one thing on multiple pages. Very cumbersome. Not so with NAV. In fact, some of the functionality is actually better. And the team loves how smoothly and easily you can export to Excel from anywhere in NAV. That was a huge plus.

GS: I personally think the look and feel of NAV is much more intuitive and approachable. I actually enjoy being in NAV. It’s more inviting.

GS: Just from the standpoint of a user working in the system, there is no comparison. Particularly for heavy users. With NAV having the Windows look and feel that they are used to dealing with, it’s a psychological plus, and there has to be greater efficiency just based on that.

HW: Basically, what we had before we were able to keep in NAV. Some processes, like executives being able to approve expense reports and POs via email, we were able to match step-by-step to what we had; so in the end, this implementation was not as much about greater efficiency on the user level. It was about the long-term picture: comparable functionality, reduced cost, with the potential of having everything on one system. Having a more affordable way to pull every part of the business on to one system, that is where the real efficiencies will be gained.