Cloud ERP for smaller Enterprises

There was a time when buying from big-tech was considered an advantage, reflected in phrases like “You never get fired for buying IBM”. But having years of experience in working with smaller companies, and having heard all the horror stories, we realized that being small and independent is actually an advantage, particularly to other small enterprises.

Communication turn-around - We don’t have layers upon layers of staff so from the first meeting you’ll talk to a true product expert with years of experience able to quicky answer complex questions. At Big-Tech ERP however, it generally takes lots of people, lots of time (over lots of meetings) to get to the same place, and this is the sales phase where everyone’s on their best behavior. This is further compounded by layers of editions, add-ons, and partners. Complexity it turns out, comes with a price (How many employees at big-tech does it take to turn a light bulb ?).

Professional Independence - Investors are great for start ups needing capital to get off the ground, we however decided to do it the old fashioned way. We boot strapped our way out of the doldrums, crossed the chasm, and seem to have landed in a happy place. Through it all we’ve remained ethically intact, became profitable, and have an amazing suite for our struggles.

Because our goal was never to become the next Microsoft, there was no need to rush. As a result, in a time where most of our direct competitors have sold out, we’ve remained independent, and devoid of the woke madness that seems to have infiltrated so many businesses these days.

To be the best at something you have to pick a focus. Ours is small enterprise.

What is a small enterprise ? - If we quantify by employee count, we’d say a small enterprise starts at 10 and tops out somewhere around 100. We avoided the “SMB” moniker (Small to Medium sized Business) because it’s too broad, where a small businesses can be less than 5 employees, and a medium business can be in the hundreds - neither of which we consider an ideal fit.

Why we’re a better fit for smaller enterprises - In our experience, it boils down to 3 things:

1. Design of the software itself - In a smaller organization people wear more hats, do more things, the exact opposite than a large organization where roles are much more specialized. So you can build a software system that runs Toyota and give it away, but it’ll still be too expensive for the typical smaller business due to its sheer complexity.

2. Vendor Culture - When you think about what companies like ours are asking you to do, this should be by far the most important thing. We’re asking you to run your entire business on our wares. That’s a huge ask, and one we don’t take lightly. Actually being there for you when what you don’t know you don’t know happens and are professionally vulnerable, are hallmarks of our ethos.

3. Subscription & Implementation Costs - Combine a fair price, a caring vendor without hidden agendas, and a great business suite, and you have a winning combination that will provide an unbeatable ROI (not to mention “predictability”) for many years to come.

4. About your data - There’s a big-tech axiom floating around these days often used to explain the Facebook and Google business models, but can just as easily apply to any large software company with prices that seem too good to be true, which goes something like “If the product is free or near free then you’re the product”. Good software engineering is not cheap or easy, so when a big organization backed by big investors offers you a deal that seems too good to be true...

Because it inevitably leads to hidden surprises (not the good kind) which are only compounded by long term contracts. We’re not saying any of our competitors intentionally set out to deceive their customers, they don’t, but if it results in the same thing, does it really matter ? It’s just another “hairball” only this one applies to ERP software, ironically the very systems built to solve the software hairballs businesses create using point packages such as QuickBooks - A tangled web indeed.

Hairball #1 - Design compromises - Let’s say you want to sell everything by the app -the ultimate pay as you go model where maybe they sell Sales, Orders, and Invoicing separately, apps every business needs - whether they know it or not. What compromises might await the user interface (UI) engineer ? In BizAutomation the customer record has an integrated UI that just assumes those apps are part of the deal, and efficiently displays a view of all dependencies such as an audit trail of all transactions (not just financial ones). When designing around that kind of complexity, one has to question if the hyper modularized approach increases or decreases clicks and navigation efficiency - we’ll let you be the judge.

Hairball #2 - Hidden Add-ons - Hidden add-ons are the bane of our industry, but they didn’t start off that way. They’re unintended consequences that evolved out of multiple editions and versions.

Unlike modularization, editions are full systems intended to solve the needs of vertical industries, such as for example a “Construction” edition. Versions such as “Standard” vs “Enterprise”.. are horizontally focused and intended to appeal to the noble assumption that if you need less, you should pay less. But this approach adds layers upon layers of complexity, delighting clever MBAs, always on the hunt for new and creative ways to extract more income from a business model. So the problem isn’t the concept per-se, it’s the temptation to leverage it to force the upsell from a cheaper subscription to a more expensive one. For example, maybe today you only sell out of one warehouse, so you don’t think to negotiate or even ask if the version or edition you’re reviewing supports multiple warehouses, only to realize 3 months into a multi-year contract that you need it, and come to learn that you have to upgrade to the “Enterprise” version to get it, at which point you’ve lost all negotiation leverage - oops!

The only way to avoid a hidden add-on is to flatten your offering to a single version/edition, which is what we did.