Rental Business System Selection Team Report
Prepared by NACD Rental and Used Equipment Services Global Rental and Used Equipment Group
August 2006
Confidential: This document is confidential and should only be distributed to those persons within your dealership that have a need to know.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary... 3 Project Charter... 4 Project and Team Summary... 6 Evaluation Process. 7 System Recommendations....10 Vendor Final Weighted Scores.........11 Scoring Detail by Vendor Rental Result... 15 RentalMan.. 16 DBS 17 Systematic... 18 Exact... 19 Solutions by Computer... 20 Pricing.. 21 Selection Issues ... 24 Appendix Usability Testing 26 Usability Lab Report: Rental Result... 28 Usability Lab Report: RentalMan... 33 Contacts.. 36
3
Executive Summary
Background Earlier this year, when Caterpillar announced that Exact rental software would not be included in DBSi 5.0, some dealers began evaluating other options. NACDs Rental and Used Equipment Services group agreed to help with the evaluation process. A joint team, including representatives from NACD and Global Rental and Used Equipment, developed a process for comparing alternative solutions. The process was then used to evaluate six rental business systems. This document recaps the results of the analysis. Conclusions and recommendations Selecting a new rental system is a costly, complex decision. Therefore, the team
recommends that prior to deciding whether to purchase a third-party rental solution, any dealer using DBS/EMS should consult with Dealer Distribution Systems to ensure that current system capabilities are being maximized.
NACD dealers who decide to replace DBS/EMS are encouraged to invest in either
Rental Result or RentalMan.
o Rental Result. A Web-based system, proven in Europe, it offers superior configuration, customization, and on-line training capabilities, as well as excellent workflow and easy access to all day-to-day business processing from a single screen. Other features include integrated reporting tools and multi-language and currency capabilities.
o RentalMan. An established rental package, well known in North America, it
is a text-driven, transactional-based system that features fast data entry and quick user training. It has excellent built-in reporting and good online system and analysis tools, as well as some multi-lingual and multi-currency capabilities.
Next Steps Caterpillar will work with the two selected vendors to define a standard deployment configuration and methodology. In addition, Caterpillar will work with these vendors to define data fields that are needed for common dealer interfaces, work with DDS and these vendors to provide a cross-reference of data fields between DBS and these systems, and define the needed validation rules for DBS, Rental Result, and RentalMan. Although Caterpillar is going to work with these vendors on deployment and interface issues, we have no plans to develop the interface code. This development work will be the responsibility of the vendor or the dealer. It should be noted that the defined work (stated above) will only be carried out with the recommended vendors for NACD. Any dealer choosing a system by another vendor will not receive this level of support.
4
PROJECT CHARTER Business Case Caterpillar and dealers agreed to remove the Exact rental software application from DBSi. The Rental & Used Equipment Services group in NACD offered to help evaluate and recommend alternative solutions. Opportunity Statement If Caterpillar guides dealer efforts to evaluate and select a new rental business system, then:
Dealers will have access to key information that can help them make better decisions.
Caterpillar will not be faced with an unmanageable number of rental applications. Dealers will have systems that meet their requirements.
Goal Statement Develop a process to evaluate the functionality and usability of alternative rental business systems. Use the process to create a list of recommended solutions. The following considerations will be made in creating the process:
Determine which applications dealers are currently using. Evaluate what is functional and what is not (as is). Ensure compatibility of any recommended software with current rental best
practices and dealer architecture in terms of asset management, rental activities (all equipment divisions) and financial control.
Include factors such as marketing group, dealer size and marketplace requirements into analysis.
Project Scope
Support all Marketing Profit Centers (MPCs). Utilize MPC input. Pilot with NACD; roll out to other MPCs for validation/modification. Final selection of a rental solution by dealers is not included in the scope of this project.
Project Plan
Kickoff February 16, 2006 Present charter and scope to Rental Advisory Group March 2006 Present project to NADITA members May 2006 Present project to MPCs June 2006 GRUC presentation June 2006 MPCs announce to dealers June 2006 Update Rental Advisory Group June 2006 Conduct usability lab (dealers provide needed personnel) July 2006 Present summary and recommendations to sponsors August 2006
5 Project Sponsors Glen Fauntleroy, NACD Rental & Used Equipment Services, General Manager Jim Johnson, MPSD Global Rental and Used Equipment, General Manager Process Owner Sam Cooper, MPSD Global Rental and Used Equipment, Rental Support Manager Team Leaders William Hood, MPSD Global Rental and Used Equipment, Senior Systems Consultant Mickey Avirett, Rental Business Consultant Team Members Alison Hixson, Rental Business Consultant Stanley Hartwig, MPSD Global Rental and Used Equipment, Systems Consultant Larry Bordner, NACD e-Business, Process Consultant Specialist Charlie Pink, Global IT Dealer Distribution Systems, Senior IT Supervisor
6
Project and Team Summary The Rental Business System Selection team began this project knowing that DBSis existing software, Exact, had many functional bugs and did not meet dealer requirements. We evaluated a variety of other solutions using 6 Sigma methodologies. The evaluation focused on functionally, but also considered business architecture, dealership size, IT resource availability, language and currency requirements and customer portal (Web) requirements. To rate the alternative solutions, the team developed a Software Evaluation Scenario spreadsheet. It included three categories, each of which was weighted as follows:
Functionality (60%) Integration and Technology (20%) General Vendor Criteria and Service (20%)
The spreadsheet contained more than 400 line items, 35 sub-categories and more than 200 scenarios. It was an amalgamation of:
Original DBSi requirement specifications Known issues with Exact Acknowledged DBSi enhancement requests Other dealer requirements
Vendors The team initially reviewed more than a dozen rental systems available in North America. Most did not meet initial selection criteria established by the team. The team selected six systems to evaluate and analyze in-depth:
Rental Result Wynne Systems (RentalMan) DBS/EMS Exact (stand-alone release) Systematic Solutions by Computer (Enfinity)
Evaluators Three people with extensive experience in the rental business conducted the evaluations.
William Hood has more than twenty years experience in selecting and implementing business systems, procedure and process controls, business re-engineering and mergers and acquisitions both nationally and internationally.
Mickey Avirett has more than 18 years of senior management and ownership experience in the equipment rental industry.
Alison Hixson has more than 20 years of experience in systems analysis, software development, deployment and project management within the equipment rental industry.
7 Evaluation Process The evaluation process was consistent across all vendors.
Each vendor was contacted with an introductory phone call and letter. A two-day on-site visit was arranged to evaluate each vendors product and
complete the Software Evaluation Scenario spreadsheet. Each software demonstration was scored on a scale of 1 to 5.
1 = does not meet the specific requirement. 2 = meets some of the specific requirement. 3 = meets most of the specific requirement. 4 = meets the entire specific requirement. 5 = far exceeds the specific requirement.
Vendors were scored independently by all team members present at the evaluation.
If the independent scores were notably different, team members discussed and reconciled the differences at the end of each day.
At the conclusion of the evaluation, team scores were totaled and recorded.
Below are samples of the scenario-scoring sheet and the final weighted scoring sheet:
8
# Name Scenario Steps Requirements Scenario
Functionally1 General Parameters / System Set-up
Control code tables; product types, divisions, industry codes, etc. Explanation
System workflow for business processes ExplanationMaximum number of stores (locations) ExplanationSystem Scheduling / Nightly jobs / batches etc.
Explanation
Document types (types of rental, different by store)Explanation
Machine tracking do you use a category / classExplanation
Rental Rate tables and entry / updating / Discounting / Multiple shift / Date range Explanation / Demonstrate
Machine configurations / and system entry / How do you handle S/N vs. Inventory / Bulk / consumable items / Equipment types
Explanation
New Inventory movement into Rental Inventory.Explanation / Demonstrate
Make Code, Model Table, S/N length etc. ExplanationMachine Inventory store ownership / split rental / transferable etc. Explanation
Printer control / alternative locations ExplanationCash Drawer / Cash Control Explanation / DemonstrateEquipment statuses / Maximum Number ExplanationGeneral Ledger / Structure / GL Code / Length / P & L configuration / Balance Sheet Explanation / Demonstrate
Non-Dealer owned (Financed) equipment / Leased Equipment Explanation
Depreciation / Multiple types Explanation / DemonstrateAbility to handle different types of customers / Charge / Cash / COD Explanation
Ability to rent different types of equipment; machines, attachments, and consumable items Explanation / Demonstrate
Multiple currencies (more than one currency on one screen / one document) Explanation / Demonstrate
Process focus Prior to evaluating each solution, the team identified dealers core business processes and made a list of key functional requirements that enabled those processes. The list served as a focal point for the evaluation. We viewed each demonstration in the context of the following guidelines:
Verify that the software addresses key business processes. Avoid getting overly impressed with new features that add functionality unrelated
to core processes. (For example, dont be swayed by a product that can be accessed remotely with a PDA, but does not enable demand planning.)
Never assume software is capable of handling something we consider a standard business function.
Ask tough questions. Dont settle for a yes-we-can-do-that response. Verify that the task cannot only be done, but done at the level required.
Ask detailed questions to determine exactly how the software works. Confirm that the data elements required to complete each task are present.
Consider usability in addition to functionality. Functionality answers the question, Can the software do something? Usability addresses How does a user get the task done?
Functionally / 60%General
Parameters/System Set-up
Misc. / Other Modules
Customer Account / Credit
Equipment / Consumables Search Customer Search Rental Rate Search
Item Weight 1% 1% 10% 2% 2% 2%Rental Result 0 0 0 0 0 0
DBS 0 0 0 0 0 0Exact 0 0 0 0 0 0
Solutions By Computer 0 0 0 0 0 0Systematic 0 0 0 0 0 0Rental Man 0 0 0 0 0 0
Integration and Technology / 20%Hardware and
Platform Database Interface CapabilitiesSystem
Administration Security Support (Help Desk)
Item Weight 5% 5% 20% 10% 10% 25%Rental Result 0 0 0 0 0 0
DBS 0 0 0 0 0 0Exact 0 0 0 0 0 0
Solutions By Computer 0 0 0 0 0 0Systematic 0 0 0 0 0 0Rental Man 0 0 0 0 0 0
General Vendor Criteria and Service / 20%Vendor presence, maturity, stability and investment
Flexibility, extensibility,
integration and upgradeability
Internet and eCommerce capabilities
Implementation Considerations References Pricing
Item Weight 21% 31% 21% 21% 6% 0%
Rental Result 0 0 0 0 0 0
DBS 0 0 0 0 0 0
Exact 0 0 0 0 0 0
Solutions By Computer 0 0 0 0 0 0
Systematic 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rental Man 0 0 0 0 0 0
10
System Recommendations Based on the analysis we completed, and the results of usability tests conducted on the highest scoring software products, the team recommends the following systems for dealer consideration: 1. Rental Result 2. RentalMan 3. DBS Rental Result scored highest in terms of functionality and usability. The higher score was due to its greater configuration capabilities, good workflow through the control center and excellent training tools. Another plus is the fact that the product is developed in JAVA. Some usability testers expressed concern about Rental Results workflow. However, the evaluation team believes the software is very flexible and can be easily configured and formatted to suit dealers needs. RentalMan was a close second. It is a solid package, well known within the equipment rental industry. However, the fact that a major competitor owns the software could create information security issues and limit a dealers ability to achieve differentiation. In addition, the programming language is aging, so it may become harder and more costly to find people to maintain the software. DBS ranked fourth in rental functionally and was not tested for usability. However, we recognize that it may be a dealers only choice when the cost of implementing a new rental system is not practical. Dealers are not bound by the results of this project. Ultimately, it is up to each dealer to choose the system that meets its requirements. However, by limiting choices to two or three common systems, dealers may realize the following benefits:
Strengthen price negotiation position Improve information exchange; ease the process of collecting data at a corporate
level (SIMS reporting) Reduce development costs. Reduce implementation time and costs Improve business efficiency by driving common best practices
The following pages (1120) provide more detailed scoring information about each vendor, starting with the Functionality Weighted Scores for all vendors.
11
Functionality Weighted Scores
Functionally / 60%
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
/
S
y
s
t
e
m
S
e
t
-
u
p
M
i
s
c
.
/
O
t
h
e
r
M
o
d
u
l
e
s
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
/
C
r
e
d
i
t
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
/
C
o
n
s
u
m
a
b
l
e
s
S
e
a
r
c
h
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
S
e
a
r
c
h
R
e
n
t
a
l
R
a
t
e
S
e
a
r
c
h
Q
u
o
t
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
n
t
a
l
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
S
i
n
g
l
e
I
t
e
m
(
1
)
R
e
n
t
a
l
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
(
2
)
-
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
I
t
e
m
s
S
u
b
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
R
e
n
t
a
l
/
U
p
d
a
t
e
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
S
w
a
p
p
i
n
g
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
/
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
f
o
r
R
e
p
a
i
r
P
a
r
t
i
a
l
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
R
e
t
u
r
n
R
e
t
u
r
n
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
R
e
n
t
a
l
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
O
p
t
i
o
n
/
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
S
a
l
e
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
I
n
v
o
i
c
i
n
g
L
o
s
t
D
e
a
l
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
P
r
i
n
t
i
n
g
R
e
n
t
a
l
R
a
t
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
R
e
p
a
i
r
a
n
d
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
F
i
n
a
l
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
Item Weight 1% 1% 10% 2% 2% 2% 5% 5% 10% 10% 3% 3% 2% 5% 5% 5% 5% 10% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3%
Rental ResultTotal Team
Score 83 76 77 84 93 77 87 85 84 85 80 85 80 80 79 60 100 80 72 100 76 80 94 Total Team Weighting 0.83 0.76 7.73 1.69 1.87 1.53 4.36 4.25 8.38 8.48 2.40 2.55 1.59 4.00 3.94 3.00 5.00 8.03 2.17 2.00 2.28 2.40 2.81 82.05
Wynne SystemTotal Team
Score 71 68 81 84 80 80 79 79 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 60 80 78 79 80 80 80 78 Total Team Weighting 0.71 0.68 8.09 1.69 1.60 1.60 3.94 3.94 8.05 8.05 2.40 2.40 1.60 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 7.82 2.37 1.60 2.40 2.40 2.34 78.67
TexadaTotal Team
Score 66 60 67 69 67 63 70 68 66 66 70 77 72 70 71 33 60 75 58 80 71 62 77 Total Team Weighting 0.66 0.60 6.67 1.38 1.33 1.27 3.52 3.42 6.62 6.62 2.10 2.30 1.45 3.50 3.56 1.67 3.00 7.45 1.73 1.60 2.12 1.85 2.32 66.73
DBSTotal Team
Score 58 60 62 62 53 60 63 59 63 62 42 60 68 68 68 67 67 66 60 60 56 80 55 Total Team Weighting 0.58 0.60 6.22 1.24 1.07 1.20 3.15 2.94 6.29 6.24 1.25 1.80 1.35 3.39 3.39 3.33 3.33 6.61 1.80 1.20 1.68 2.40 1.66 62.73
ExactTotal Team
Score 61 57 57 80 80 80 73 74 68 71 67 63 62 59 55 60 40 58 48 73 52 60 39 Total Team Weighting 0.61 0.57 5.73 1.60 1.60 1.60 3.67 3.72 6.81 7.10 2.00 1.90 1.24 2.94 2.75 3.00 2.00 5.85 1.43 1.47 1.56 1.80 1.16 62.10
Solutions by Computer
Total Team Score 61 29 59 80 40 80 73 73 74 74 55 78 30 58 59 20 57 67 29 80 75 65 44
Total Team Weighting 0.61 0.29 5.91 1.60 0.80 1.60 3.64 3.67 7.43 7.43 1.65 2.35 0.60 2.89 2.97 1.00 2.83 6.73 0.87 1.60 2.24 1.95 1.31 61.96
12
Integration and
Technology / 20%
Har
dwar
e an
d Pl
atfo
rm
Dat
abas
e
Inte
rfac
e C
apab
ilitie
s
Syst
em
Adm
inis
trat
ion
Secu
rity
Supp
ort (
Hel
p D
esk)
Perf
orm
ance
Fina
l Ave
rage
Item Weight 5% 5% 20% 10% 10% 25% 25%
Rental ResultTotal Team
Score 82 87 87 73 60 60 80 Total Team Weighting 4.11 4.33 17.33 7.33 6.00 15.00 20.00 74.11
Wynne SystemTotal Team
Score 67 63 60 80 67 67 87 Total Team Weighting 3.33 3.17 12.00 8.00 6.67 16.67 21.67 71.50
TexadaTotal Team
Score 53 30 40 60 40 73 70 Total Team Weighting 2.67 1.50 8.00 6.00 4.00 18.33 17.50 58.00
DBSTotal Team
Score 62 60 53 60 47 80 80 Total Team Weighting 3.11 3.00 10.67 6.00 4.67 20.00 20.00 67.44
ExactTotal Team
Score 69 53 60 60 33 53 47 Total Team Weighting 3.44 2.67 12.00 6.00 3.33 13.33 11.67 52.44
Solutions by Computer
Total Team Score 73 43 60 60 40 60 60
Total Team Weighting 3.67 2.17 12.00 6.00 4.00 15.00 15.00 57.83
General Vendor
Criteria and Service /
20%
Vend
or p
rese
nce,
mat
urity
, st
abili
ty a
nd in
vest
men
t
Flex
ibili
ty, e
xten
sibi
lity,
in
tegr
atio
n an
d up
grad
eabi
lity
Inte
rnet
and
eC
omm
erce
ca
pabi
litie
s
Impl
emen
tatio
n C
onsi
dera
tions
Ref
eren
ces
Fina
l Ave
rage
Item Weight 21% 31% 21% 21% 6%
Rental ResultTotal Team
Score 80 80 80 80 80Total Team Weighting 16.80 24.80 16.80 16.80 4.80 80.00
Wynne System
Total Team Score 80 60 57 73 80
Total Team Weighting 16.80 18.60 11.90 15.40 4.80 67.50
TexadaTotal Team
Score 47 38 80 67 40Total Team Weighting 9.80 11.71 16.80 14.00 2.40 54.71
DBSTotal Team
Score 93 42 33 60 80Total Team Weighting 19.60 13.09 7.00 12.60 4.80 57.09
ExactTotal Team
Score 80 56 50 73 40Total Team Weighting 16.80 17.22 10.50 15.40 2.40 62.32
Solutions by Computer
Total Team Score 80 40 20 40 40
Total Team Weighting 16.80 12.40 4.20 8.40 2.40 44.20
14
Final Weighted Scores Rental Result 80.06 RentalMan 75.00 Texada / Systematic 62.58 DBS 62.55 Exact 60.22 Solutions by Computer 57.58
15 Scoring Details by Vendor Rental Result Rental Result ranked highest in terms of functionality and usability. Its strengths included:
Superior configuration and customization capabilities (field-level security, flexible data field lengths, easily customizable screens)
Excellent training capabilities with the ability to embed training videos (should reduce training costs)
Outstanding workflow through the use of a business control center that allows users to access all day-to-day business processes from a single screen.
100% JAVA-based system with integrated reporting tools, as well as multi-lingual, multi-company and multi-currency capabilities
Established rental solution, proven in Europe for more than 10 years As Mike Young from Caterpillar User Experience Services stated, With its greater configuration capabilities and the slightly more positive results observed from the usability tests, it is our recommendation that Rental Result be considered as the preferred application for a rental business system. Young also noted that, Rental Results business process is not as apparent as a more transactional system. The evaluation team believes Youngs concerns can be addressed when the software is configured and formatted to meet dealer needs. The team cautions that despite Rental Results success in Europe, there may be some support resource limitations in the US. The company projects a deployment time of approximately six months. We believe the job can be done in a shorter timescale. Weighted Scores
Functionality 82 Integration and Technology 74 Vendor Criteria and Service 80 Final Weighted Score 80
16
RentalMan RentalMan finished second in the analysis and had the following strengths:
Established package, proven in the US marketplace. Current industry standard, used by most major US rental companies (so
employees who have worked in the industry may already be familiar with it). Text-driven, transactional based system, easy to learn, fast data entry capabilities. Functional, easy-to-use search tools. Excellent built-in reporting, good online system and analysis tools.
Mike Young from the Cat Usability Laboratory called RentalMan more closely matched to the systems and processes users currently utilize. Despite the popularity of RentalMan, it has several limitations. It is owned by a major competitor, which could jeopardize dealer differentiation and put confidential information at risk. In addition, it has been on the market since 1993. As its programming language continues to age, it will be more difficult and costly to maintain the software. The company did not convey a clear direction about future language product development. Finally, the team found some insufficiency in the vendors support resources and has heard negative comments from some dealers regarding the companys rapid deployment methodology. Weighted Scores
Functionality 79 Integration and Technology 71 Vendor Criteria and Service 67 Final Weighted Score 75
17 DBS DBS was virtually tied for third place with Systematic in functionality and was not tested for usability since nearly all NACD dealers currently use DBS. Although the system is deployed at CAT dealerships, it was never engineered as a rental solution. It is not user friendly and is difficult to train. It too has aging programming language and is not Web enabled. Despite its many limitations, DBS may be a dealers preferred choice when the cost of implementing a new rental business system cannot be justified. Weighted Scores
Functionality 63 Integration and Technology 67 Vendor Criteria and Service 57 Final Weighted Score 62
18
Systematic Systematic scored third in functionality and was not tested for usability. Its strengths include:
Well-established rental application with Web enablement. User-friendly system, developed by company with good knowledge of the
industry. Looks and feels like a typical Unix application with many cascading drop down
menus. Systematic has begun developing a new JAVA-based rental business application. After the product has been released and gained market maturity, it may warrant further analysis. Due to low functionality scores, the Systematic product it is not being recommended for dealer consideration. Weighted Scores
Functionality 67 Integration and Technology 58 Vendor Criteria and Service 55 Final Weighted Score 62
19 Exact The stand-alone Exact product ranked fifth in functionality. The version we tested had more features than the version included in DBSi, which was frozen at a previous release. However, DBSi Rental (which includes all software components used in the rental business) worked better than the stand-alone Exact product, due to integration and functionality of the individual software components. The team found an obvious lack of industry and rental knowledge during the evaluation. As Exact is a complete ERP package focused primarily on manufacturing, it was never engineered as a dedicated rental system. The company appears to have no direction or budget for developing a future product that better meets the needs of the rental business. We were extremely disappointed that the stand-alone version offered by Exact is not the same version that was deployed in SCM in Japan (e.g. the stand alone version still does not have the capability to print reports which is standard functionality in the SCM version). Exact was not invited to participate in the Usability Laboratory. Due to its low functionality scores and lack of commitment, Exact will not be recommended for dealer consideration. Weighted Scores
Functionality 62 Integration and Technology 52 Vendor Criteria and Service 62 Final Weighted Score 60
20 Solutions By Computer SBC chose to demonstrate Enfinity, a new rental services product. While the system scored high in functionality on the elements presented, the overall score was driven down due to missing segments in the new product. SBC targets its products and marketing toward smaller, mom and pop type operations. We feel their marketing niche would hinder SBC in implementing an effective rental business solution for CAT dealers. SBC was not invited to participate in the Usability Laboratory. Due to low functionality scores, SBC will not be recommended for dealer consideration. Weighted Scores
Functionality 62 Integration and Technology 58 Vendor Criteria and Service 44 Final Weighted Score 57
21
Pricing As part of our evaluation, the team asked the vendors to provide pricing information for review. When you review the pricing, you will see that Wynne Systems bases some of their pricing on the number of branches, and Rental Result bases their pricing on number of users, so it is difficult to get an apple-to-apple comparison. In addition to the differences in pricing structure, Wynne Systems list optional software; the functionality provided by this optional software is included in Rental Results standard system. For your review, we have included the pricing models provided to Caterpillar from Wynne Systems, Inc. and Rental Result on the following pages. However, to understand the actual cost of the rental business system for your dealership, it will be each dealers responsibility to solicit quotes from the vendors.
22
Prepared for: Caterpillar, Inc. Submitted by: Wynne Systems, Inc. August 23, 2006 All information contained in this quote is proprietary and may not be reproduced without the written consent of Wynne Systems, Inc. NOTE Wynne Systems quote RentalMan as a base license with optional software. The system we evaluated and tested in the usability Lab utilized all the optional software listed here. 5 Locations License (USD) Annual Maintenance RentalMan $60,000.00 19% of license Options Pricing: RentalMan Customer Portal $30,000.00 19% of license RentalMan Sales Tool $30,000.00 19% of license RentalMan Dashboard $42,500.00 19% of license GUIStyle by ABL $156,125.00 20% of license FastFax by Quadrant (one partition) $11,995.00 18% of license FormSprint by Integrated Custom Software (one partition) $11,000.00 18% of license Surveyor/400 by Linoma Software (one partition) $1,995.00 18% of license File Acess by Oasis Software (one partition) $955.00 18% of license Jcharge Core Software License by Verifone (one processing network) $21,595.00 18% of license
Total $366,165.00
10 Locations License (USD) Annual Maintenance RentalMan $90,000.00 19% of license Options Pricing: RentalMan Customer Portal $30,000.00 19% of license RentalMan Sales Tool $30,000.00 19% of license RentalMan Dashboard $55,000.00 19% of license GUIStyle by ABL $162,250.00 20% of license FastFax by Quadrant (one partition) $11,995.00 18% of license FormSprint by Integrated Custom Software (one partition) $11,000.00 18% of license Surveyor/400 by Linoma Software (one partition) $1,995.00 18% of license File Acess by Oasis Software (one partition) $955.00 18% of license Jcharge Core Software License by Verifone (one processing network) $21,595.00 18% of license
Total $414,790.00 20 Locations License (USD) Annual Maintenance RentalMan $150,000.00 19% of license Options Pricing: RentalMan Customer Portal $30,000.00 19% of license RentalMan Sales Tool $30,000.00 19% of license RentalMan Dashboard $80,000.00 19% of license GUIStyle by ABL $174,500.00 20% of license FastFax by Quadrant (one partition) $11,995.00 18% of license FormSprint by Integrated Custom Software (one partition) $11,000.00 18% of license Surveyor/400 by Linoma Software (one partition) $1,995.00 18% of license File Acess by Oasis Software (one partition) $955.00 18% of license Jcharge Core Software License by Verifone (one processing network) $21,595.00 18% of license
Total $512,040.00
23 All information contained in this quote is proprietary and may not be reproduced without the written consent of Rental Result
Rental Result CAT Dealer Pricing
Indicative Costs 20 60
16-Aug-06 $ $ $ $ $ $
Element CapitalAnnual Support Capital
Annual Support
Cost/User Cost Costs Cost/User Cost Costs
Rentalresult Classic - Software Licences 3,500 70,000 17,500 3,500 210,000 52,500
Priced per named user, licences incorporate :Reportnet Restricted User LicensesProgress Database licenses
Cognos
Reportnet Administrator - One named user 9,500 2,375 9,500 2,375Reportnet Author - One named user 2,736 684 2,736 684N.B. Cognos will also require an SQL Database
Resultmail (server license) 7,500 1,875 7,500 1,875Resultfax (server license with 4 lines) 7,500 1,875 7,500 1,875
Sub Totals 97,236 24,309 237,236 59,309
Professional Services Implementation
Service Category Rate/day Days Cost Days Cost
Project Director 1,750 12 21,000 18 31,500Project Manager 1,500 24 36,000 36 54,000Application Consultancy / Training 1,500 38 57,000 44 66,000Installation 1,250 5 6,250 5 6,250Data Conversions 1,250 8 10,000 8 10,000BI Training & Consultancy 1,500 16 24,000 16 24,000
Total Professional Services Phase - 1 154,250 191,750
Overall Cost by Dealer Size 251,486 24,309 428,986 59,309
Small Company # Users Medium Company # Users
24 Selection Issues Selecting the right system involves more than simply comparing features, functionality and price. It requires finding a system that not only meets business objectives, but also can be successfully implemented in an acceptable timeframe and maintained at a reasonable cost over the long haul. Some of the key factors to consider when evaluating potential systems include the following:
System intuitiveness. This will affect the level of training required and the ability of the system to control business processes. Intuitiveness is an important consideration when staff turnover is high or significant business growth is planned.
Platform and programming language. In general, the more modern the
platform and the programming language, the easier and more cost effective it will be to find IT resources.
Capabilities vs. business requirements. It is important to match capabilities to
business requirements. In other words, dont pay for features you wont utilize. At the same time, dont overlook the fact that new features could represent a source of differentiation, allowing you to set your service experience apart from the competition.
Payback period. The payback period should be calculated and understood prior
to selection. Some of the elements contributing to Return on Investment will be tangible and others will be assumptions. For example, a reduction in headcount is a calculated savings, while a 5% increase in rental revenue is an estimate.
To-be perspective. The costs and benefits of a new system should be based on
the to-be business model, as opposed to the as-is. For example, if there is an expected headcount reduction and the system being considered has a user-based license structure, then the projected staffing levels should be used in the cost calculation.
Integration. The level of integration required between the rental service business
and the rest of the dealership must also be considered. In some cases, the need for a totally integrated system may make it cost prohibitive to implement a stand-alone rental solution. It is a very costly mistake to develop system interfaces that are not truly necessary. Carefully analyze the business configuration driving the need for interfaces and only develop after examining the costs and benefits.
Other issues. Some of the other critical factors that must be considered while
evaluating alternative rental packages include:
25
o Need to maintain separate rental fleet o Size of rental services division o Availability of IT resources with development experience o Language requirements o Currency requirements o Customer expectations for Web portal
The team recognizes that the selection of rental business software is a complex and costly undertaking. Therefore, we recommend that dealers consult with Dealer Distribution Systems prior to making a final decision to ensure that you are maximizing DBS/EMS to its fullest extent.
26
Appendix Usability Testing
One aspect of the evaluation involved testing the two highest scoring software packages for usability.
Usability is the degree to which a productsoftware, hardware or anything elseis easy to use and a good fit for the people who use it. It is a quality or characteristic and reflects whether a product is efficient, effective and satisfying for those who use it. A Usability Laboratory is a formal process that tests whether a product works the way the user expects it to work. It is also a way to determine whether targeted users can effectively use the product to complete specified tasks. The testing process identifies areas where users have trouble learning, understanding or using the product. Usability testing is not researchthe sample size is too small. Nor is it quality assurance or focus testing, although both are important in the design of user-centered products. Characteristics of the usability testing process
Primary focus is usability. Real users participate. Participants do tasks that probe the usability of the product. Participants think out loud as they work. Stakeholders and developers observe. Usability staff observes and records tester behavior and preferences. Usability problems are diagnosed and improvements are recommended.
Rental software test parameters
Five to six users for each application were tested from several US dealerships. Individual users were asked to complete common tasks using each application and
provide feedback while interacting with the application. Qualitative and quantitative data was collected on user experiences with the
application. User data was then used to analyze the usability of each tool. Each tool was
scored according to nine different usability principles: o Match the real world o Rely on recognition, rather than recall o Provide useful error messages o Ensure visibility of system/status information o Maintain consistency and standards o Allow easy reversal of actions o Provide flexibility and efficiency o Keep designs attractive and simple o Offer useful help and documentation
27
Scoring ranged from 1 to 5 o 1 = does not meet any usability standards/principles and/or users
expectations o 2 = minimally meets usability standards/principles and/or users
expectations o 3 = moderately meets usability standards/principles and/or users
expectations o 4 = sufficiently meets usability standards/principles and/or users
expectations o 5 = exceeds usability standards/principles and/or users expectations
A report was created for each application, outlining key issues uncovered in the testing process and the potential impact of each issue on users.
Conclusions of comparative analysis: Rental Results vs. RentalMan With both systems, users were able to complete most tasks they were asked to do. Rental Results is the more flexible tooleasier to configure and customize. It is also
Windows-based and Web-enabled and has superior multi-language and currency capabilities.
RentalMan is familiar to many users and more closely matches the systems and processes they currently use.
Both tools will require improvements in how the interface operates, as well as the labels/language used in the application and the way in which the process is made evident within the tools. Without these improvements prior to implementation, users may have difficulty learning and using the applications, which will negatively impact dealers acceptance and satisfaction.
With its greater configuration capabilities and slightly higher usability scores, Rental Result should be considered the preferred application for a rental business system. However, this recommendation is contingent on proper configuration and improvement to the tool to better match dealers needs.
See pages 28-35 for more complete usability reports on each application.
28
Appendix - Usability Lab Report: Rental Result General user behavior/demographics Six users tested, two had seen product demonstrated. Users were familiar with DBS, Exact and RentalMan. Users rated themselves average or above average on general computer experience. Users expressed that a Windows-based program would be easier to learn. Users did not think in terms of exchanging a machine as they viewed it as two
separate actions receiving the old and sending out the new. Users did not understand the exchange process in the system never saw it. Strengths Windows-based, so matches more of user expectations regarding the Graphical User
Interface (GUI). Configurable, so offers limited ability to improve and tailor the application for Cat
dealers. Flexible design supports future development and improvement. Contextual help available in the form of tutorials. Weaknesses Business process is not as apparent as it is in more transactional systems. GUI has a lot of noise that distracts the user. Configuration may reduce this. Due to the way the GUI is displayed, users use both mouse and keyboard inputs,
which is often slower than keyboard-only input. Summary Users were able to complete most tasks using Rental Result. However, not all tasks could be completed efficiently. For the transactional-type tasks this application is required to support, the process needs to be much more evident in the system itself. Most of the issues observed can be addressed by configuring the system to meet Cat dealers needs. It is recommended that a best practices configuration be developed for dealers to modify, as the system requires a large amount of configuration in order to be usable and efficient.
Total score: 26 out of 45 Scores/issues by usability principle (Note: Issues marked with **** will have a significant impact on user satisfaction/productivity and should be addressed prior to implementation. Other issues should be addressed if business case allows.)
Match the real world. Use vocabulary and a task order that users are familiar with, rather than a system-oriented perspective. Score = 2 ****Search field names should reflect what users are trying to search (i.e.,
customer search should have customer name field).
29
Field labels, error messages, page titles, etc. all need to be written in terms of the target audience and users in general.
Users did not go to movements. Suggest changing the label. ****There is very little process apparent in the system. Its just a collection of
pages/tabs where users fill in information. For transactional tasks like these, the process needs to be very clear or it will result in data issues in the system.
****Users expect to be able to use searches and then perform tasks from within that contract/customer. Making the application contract- or customer-centric rather than area-centric would probably be more intuitive.
Rely on recognition, rather than recall. Use selection methods when possible; provide easy access to instructions; make icons, menu names/options easy to understand so users do not have to memorize or remember them. Score = 3 **** Invisible key strokes should not be required by users to activate something
in the GUI (enter to cancel/ok, etc.) Users not readily seeing icons (new, save, etc.) Contract lists dont contain the information users need such as equipment ID.
Users need to see equipment from list of contracts. ****Most users did not recognize the tiled windows for what they were; need
to have more descriptive tile names. Tiles should have more descriptive labels to better distinguish what is open.
Icons should be redundant rather than primary; users expect main commands on screen for these types of applications.
****Users did not know what movements contained. Even once they were prompted there, it was not clear to them what they needed to do.
Need a legend for the different statuses or an information icon that gives them the ability to find out what the different statuses are.
****Users expect a selection from create/update to create or update, rather than relying on user to recognize what they need to do once in the area.
Need area labels within a page (i.e., charges).
Provide useful error messages. Strive to develop an error-proof design to minimize the need for error messages. But when messages are required, make sure theyre expressed in plain language, indicate the problem and suggest a solution. Score = 3 Some error messages provided both the problem and the solution, but others were
not clear to users and did not seem to match what the application had just done. Good messages: The account number entered does not exist. To search by
customer name, click the button next to the account field. Poor message: The application is currently busy and cant be closed at this time.
Please close or cancel all active documents and try again. (This situation was caused by another window being opened, but the message made it sound like the system was busy or overwhelmed and the user could just wait.)
****Poor message: Returned fuel not entered against a returned line with dispatched fuel. (What does the user need to do?)
30
****Even worse: There is no quantity on line ___. (No indication of where the line is that the message is referring to. The line was not apparent on the page, but buried in another tab).
Ensure visibility of system status/information. Provide feedback to users about what is happening, how long the wait may be and what the consequences of their actions are. Score = 3 ****Multiple controls on screen (OK and Search). Users were confused which
would activate the Search. Stacking of tiles needs to be clearer. Users often had three or four windows open,
but didnt realize it. The multiple tiled windows made it difficult for users to identify where they were in the process flow. Need visual indication of which tile is active.
Need more obvious page titles (Equipment Search). Very important if users tile several windows on the page. Can users have more than one window displayed to create a dashboard?
****In general there is a lack of feedback about what has been done on a contract. Users expect to be informed, usually via a pop-up, when major actions have been completed (i.e., save, create, etc.)
Users were confused about where they were in the system; too many layered windows, need visual indication, clear page titles, etc.
No results found should come up in the results area not in the bottom information bar.
Maintain consistency & standards. Consistency reduces learning time and increases productivity. Provide consistency within and between applications. Score = 2 ****Action buttons located in different places (bottom left, bottom right, buried
among the fields.) ****Users were confused about which button to push when the only accept
possibility was close. Close is not typically used as an accept function. Almost no consistency in results across evaluators. Will cause data issues later
on. If users couldnt figure out where to put certain information, like job site address, they would add it wherever they thought appropriate.
****No indication of what is required in order to save until save prompts. ****Users seemed to want to search more on customer name than account
number. Typically will want the initial search field to be the most known information
****Search button should not grey out. What if user wants to do a blank search to pull up all customers?
****Xs are not active here. Make them work consistently throughout the application; either always work (best) or never work.
Stacked windows should cover any inactive commands ****Should be able to cancel out of the amendment. Needing to hit enter to
activate the different action commands is not standard.
31 Allow easy reversal of actions. Users often experiment, click wrong buttons or type incorrect information. They need to be able to undo a recent action quickly. Score = 3 Users had difficulty changing the price for pick up charge. Not clear that they
can highlight and type in changes. ****Users expect a back button to recover from an error. Cancel should cancel the page and return user to previous state, not the starting
point.
Provide flexibility and efficiency. Individual users have differing needs which may change over time. Provide flexibility (shortcuts, accelerator keys, pop-up menus, etc.) to meet their changing needs and preferences. Score = 3 ****Information is a bit siloed. Can find the contract, but cant return from
search. Users expect to be able to find contracts and perform rental return (actions in general) from the search area. System needs to flow both ways; find contract and act on it or go to action area.
Users have to go through several search areas to get to what they want to search on.
Expect typed entry in previous field to carry through if user types and then hits the look up.
Requiring amendments each time was frustrating to users. Amendments appeared even if user hadnt changed anything.
****Cursor should come up in the field to be searched to minimize mouse to keyboard.
In some areas, user had to essentially search twice on a field to get to a results page as it brought up a confirming account number page for the customer that had been searched on.
Keep designs attractive and simple. Eliminate unnecessary or seldom-used information. Extra information and visual clutter competes with what is relevant. Present information in a natural and logical order. Score = 3 Select unit buttons are not in area where units are being selected Rental return If only job is to create new, just go there, not to a screen that
makes them select new. ****Report is very busy, poorly laid out, no clear heading labels. Looks similar
to what we see in Exact today. Tiles should not remain on top left if user has saved and exited that area Offer useful help & documentation. Help information should be easy to search, focus on users task, list steps to be performed and require minimal space. Score = 4 Tutorial should be available from every screen, with ability to access different
topics.
32
Suggest moving the tutorials to the right as they are in prime real estate now and most users look for help in the upper right corner.
Users thought tutorials were too quick. Need a way to access the list of videos along with an indexed topic search, as
sometimes users need help finding where something is. Some users may not see the progress bar, so wouldnt suggest that they restart.
Should just have a replay button. Videos were used by several users to help them complete their tasks. Videos should demonstrate where exactly the user is, rather than just the general
area.
33 Appendix - Usability Lab Report: RentalMan General user behavior/demographics
Five users from various US dealerships tested the product. Users rated themselves average or above average in general computer experience Users were familiar with DBS and Exact. Users did not think in terms of exchanging a machine as they viewed it as two
separate actions receiving the old and sending out the new. Users did not understand the exchange process in the system never saw it.
Strengths
More closely matches the systems/processes users currently utilize. Is transactional in nature the same as the tasks it supports. For the most part, allows keyboard-only entry.
Weaknesses
Longer learning curve for new users. Difficult to configure or improve. Not very flexible in terms of future development. Not Windows-based, which newer users have come to expect.
Summary Users were able to complete their tasks with the system, but were sometimes confused about what area of the application they were in or needed to be in. For transactional tasks, this type of system can be very efficient, once a fairly steep learning curve is overcome. With the functions and commands shown on most screens, the learning curve will be quicker than a traditional green-screen application. Improvements in how the interface looks and works (mimicking Windows functionality) would improve user efficiency and productivity.
Total score: 21 out of 45 Scores/issues by usability principle (Note: Issues marked with **** will have a significant impact on user satisfaction/productivity and should be addressed prior to implementation. Other issues should be addressed if business case allows.)
Match the real world. Use vocabulary and a task order that users are familiar with, rather than a system-oriented perspective. Score = 3 Entering password in each area was annoying to users; suggest a time out
procedure or a more visible indication of who is logged into the system, with an easy method to logout and log back in.
Users were often confused with how many times they needed to enter to finish the contract.
34
****Users expect to be able to search on customer name from most areas, as they dont always have the contract number.
****Users didnt pick up on the advanced search (F4) for finding other information.
Some DBS users confused the function keys, but others were able to transfer their knowledge of how to work with this type of system.
Rely on recognition, rather than recall. Use selection methods when possible; provide easy access to instructions; make icons, menu names/options easy to understand so users do not have to memorize or remember them. Score = 2 ****Global commands should be visible on page at all times. Sub-menu categories (sales, inquiries, etc.) need to be more visible. There are
redundant areas with categories (i.e., several users started with the incorrect equipment menu item.)
Date icon is not recognizable as a calendar. Only one user attempted to use it. Need legend explaining what different credit status codes mean. Dont abbreviate labels if at all possible. **** First list of left Function links should stay if look at more
Provide useful error messages. Strive to develop an error-proof design to minimize the need for error messages. But when messages are required, make sure theyre expressed in plain language, indicate the problem and suggest a solution. Score = 2 ****Informational messages at bottom need to be brought into main grey area
only the error messages should be red ****Must protect users from losing data with prompts
Ensure visibility of system status/information. Provide feedback to users about what is happening, how long the wait may be and what the consequences of their actions are. Score = 3 ****If there is a multiple field search where the fields are mutually exclusive, the
other fields should grey out once one field is entered. Need to show format of date fields so users dont have to guess. Once the user has clicked on check box, other fields should appear, not after move
to another field. When searching, all customers appeared, rather than just those that met the search
criteria not typical search behavior.
Maintain consistency & standards. Consistency reduces learning time and increases productivity. Provide consistency within and between applications. Score = 2 ****If user clicked in middle of field, the password and search fields were
screwed up, as it recorded the first characters as spaces. When clicking in a field, cursor should come up in first position.
Password should show asterisk when characters are typed. ****Fields should not wrap to the next field when typing a string.
35
****Required fields should be marked. Scroll bar seemed to disappear after scrolling a couple of times. Sometimes enter would take cursor back to the first field should act consistently
usually acted as enter and go to next field. ****In some pop up areas, the command instructions arent there user has to
enter X to select, rather than a 1 in the rest of the system. No field label on the PO once it is entered. Page titles should match the number user entered to come here.
Allow easy reversal of actions. Users often experiment, click wrong buttons or type incorrect information. They need to be able to undo their most recent actions quickly. Score = 2 ****Need a previous screen button as a global function key. ****Users expect F3 to take them to the previous screen not back to a starting
point.
Provide flexibility and efficiency. Individual users have differing needs which may change over time. Provide flexibility (shortcuts, accelerator keys, pop-up menus, etc.) to meet their changing needs and preferences. Score = 3 ****Check boxes force user to switch to mouse strength of this type of system
is that can operate solely from the keyboard. ****Buried/hidden commands will greatly increase a learning curve. Is there a
site map that shows the user what commands are available when in an area?
Keep designs attractive and simple. Eliminate unnecessary or seldom used information. Extra information and visual clutter competes with what is relevant. Present information in a natural and logical order.. Score = 3 Credit status needs to be together with credit limit. There the extra step of showing the customer details - account number before
showing the details when searching on customer name. ****Need visual breaks between areas on a page and layout of information that
increases scanability and readability
Offer useful help & documentation. Help information should be easy to search, focus on users task, list steps to be performed and require minimal space. Score = 1 Some users expected to be able to type a question mark into a field to get
contextual help on that field. Help screens did not provide useful information to the users. Help locked the other screens out if not closed.
36
Appendix: Contacts For additional information pertaining to this report please contact the following: Will Hood Sr. Rental Systems Consultant Global Rental & Used Equipment Department [email protected] Phone: 559-323-9606 (Office) 559-260-7459 (Mobile) Stan Hartwig Rental Systems Consultant Global Rental & Used Equipment Department [email protected] Phone: 309-675-6478 (Office) 309-253-2347 (Mobile) Sam Cooper Global Rental Support Manager Global Rental & Used Equipment Department [email protected] Phone: 309-675-4720 (Office) 309-258-2206 (Mobile)
