Unrequited need isn't the only problem, either. There's also the clothing-size issue: Just because a suit is well-made doesn't mean it looks good on you. It also has to fit.
Oracle's process designs are, I'm sure, neither better nor worse than any other carefully plotted swim-lane diagrams (the standard way to graphically describe a process design). It's just that they almost certainly don't all line up with your current processes, so taking Ellison's advice means process re-engineering on a massive scale. The good news is that the process designs themselves are done. The bad news is that the good news only covers about 10 percent of the total effort of changing every process in your company.
Ellison isn't completely wrong. Many ERP implementations are unnecessarily complicated because of that's-how-we-do-things-around-here thinking. It's quite true that many companies don't give their ERP vendors' shrink-wrap processes a fair hearing.
But imagine your meeting with the CEO, COO, and CFO, as you explain the benefit of standardizing on nothing but Oracle's software and processes: "Sure, we'll have to change how every bit of work in the company is done, but in return we'll save on the cost of Oracle upgrades! Not only that, but we'll operate exactly like every one of our competitors. Think of the benefit to our customers: They'll be able to switch among all of us at virtually no cost!"
Good luck finding your next CIO position.
The whole thing is silly. If every company took Ellison's advice, then every company would follow identical processes -- those envisioned by their ERP vendor and only those envisioned by their ERP vendor. Taken to its logical conclusion, the result would be that every company in a particular industry would be identical to all others.
Hmmm. Maybe he is a commie after all.