Running Quickbooks is like....
-
@scottalanmiller said:
The important thing, IMHO, is making sure that they understand that IT does not approve and that we see it as them not taking their business seriously.You post this particular thing a lot. "not taking their business seriously"
Do you have any non IT functions that we are use as examples of them not taking the business seriously so we can show why we feel this way, and why we are valid our beliefs?
-
@Dashrender said:
Do you have any non IT functions that we are use as examples of them not taking the business seriously so we can show why we feel this way, and why we are valid our beliefs?
That's a good question. I alluded to that the other day.
-
@Nic said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Nic said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Nic said:
QB dominates the market because they make the software for the preferences of the accountants, not the sysadmins. If that's what your accountant uses, as an SMB, that's what you use. You have no choice.
Of course you do, you have the choice to use an accountant who also takes what they do seriously. Why would you ever chose an accountant that isn't serious about accounting? That's totally crazy.
Doesn't matter when they have 97% of the accountants locked up.
It still matters to the businesses. In any field only a small percentage are really any good or take what they do seriously. Most are just there to coast, take advantage of others not looking to do a good job, etc. That most accountants are not very good or don't care about their jobs or their customers is not surprising. That businesses don't care about themselves and keep using them isn't surprising either. But none of that means that IT pros should look the other way and just act like one bad decision after another isn't bad. Once we do that, we are acting just like those accountants.
You don't have much choice if all the accountants in a 100 mile radius only use QB. And most businesses are shitty too, so they just go with whatever is handy.
Why does your accountant need to be local?
-
@Dashrender said:
Why does your accountant need to be local?
How else are they going to take anyone to lunch?
-
@BRRABill said:
So, you are saying for a smallish SOHO who just wants to do simple bookkeeping
- There are MUCH better products than QB
- They should switch accountants.
Absolutely. If your accountant is not there to support your business, you should switch from them regardless of how you figured that out. Your account is there to support you, not you to support them!!
-
What do you typically recommend in this space?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Nic said:
Does QB get the job done? Is it what my accountant uses? Good enough. IT guys complains?
Ah, but let's define "gets the job done." Is the job to "siphon my money to the accountants?" Then yes, it does that well.
Is the job to "help me make money" then no, it fails miserably.
What is the "job" that we are saying it does or doesn't do?
But those business people aren't looking at it like that, nor do they really care to... instead they are considering, is the actual job getting done, can they put invoices in? can they put payroll info in? can they put payables in? yes yes and yes - it does the job. Is the business still afloat - yes... then QB is fine for them.
-
@BRRABill said:
What do you typically recommend in this space?
Agreed - you mentioned a free product - what is is called?
-
@Dashrender said:
But those business people aren't looking at it like that, nor do they really care to... instead they are considering, is the actual job getting done, can they put invoices in? can they put payroll info in? can they put payables in? yes yes and yes - it does the job. Is the business still afloat - yes... then QB is fine for them.
I would say this is the MAJORITY of what people are looking for in an accounting program.
What are they missing, exactly?
-
@Dashrender said:
@BRRABill said:
What do you typically recommend in this space?
Agreed - you mentioned a free product - what is is called?
For SOHOs and the smaller SMBs, Wave is excellent and completely free. Blows QB out of the water. It's fully hosted, fully multi-user, no user limits, no weird desktop installations, fully modern design. It is quite good but not the most featureful. If you get big enough or complex enough it will stop being the best choice. But it scales, for free, dramatically beyond the QB world. QB tops out at a hard limit of around five users, I believe, due to architectural constraints. Wave would handle hundreds of accounting, bookkeeping and other roles no problem.
-
It depends on the businesses needs. There is no one size fits all. However pretty close to Onesize is Xero it's "one size" sorta. There are so many add ons to customize it to business needs. I have been happy with it and their support structure so far.
-
@Dashrender said:
@BRRABill said:
What do you typically recommend in this space?
Agreed - you mentioned a free product - what is is called?
There's a couple. Wave for a hosted solution. You could use any of the free ERP systems like ERPNext, xTuple, etc. Or something like Gnucash with the data stored locally or on a share.
The nice thing about the ERP systems is if you need anything further along down the road like inventory tracking, BOM, serial numbers, etc you can just enable the module.
-
Wave is good as well. There are a few limits as far as how it does things. But it's pretty good. We have used it for a few years but do to some more needs have switched to Xero.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Nic said:
Does QB get the job done? Is it what my accountant uses? Good enough. IT guys complains?
Ah, but let's define "gets the job done." Is the job to "siphon my money to the accountants?" Then yes, it does that well.
Is the job to "help me make money" then no, it fails miserably.
What is the "job" that we are saying it does or doesn't do?
But those business people aren't looking at it like that, nor do they really care to... instead they are considering, is the actual job getting done, can they put invoices in? can they put payroll info in? can they put payables in? yes yes and yes - it does the job. Is the business still afloat - yes... then QB is fine for them.
A "business person", an emprasario, a businessman, a CEO... has one job, to make money. In a public company that is a legal constraint not just a general conceptual one. The purpose of a business is, by definition, to make money. In any case where "profit" is ignored in a business setting (ignored does not imply profit at any cost, you know what I mean) then they have failed at their only job. So, what I would consider by definition, QB is not fine for them and is not doing the job that they need it to do.
We are confusing the means with the ends. Getting caught in the weeds as they say looking at proximate goals and having failed to remember the actual goals of the business.
-
Isn't it possible they could look at QB as a way to so the things already mentioned, and find other ways to make money?
Not saying there aren't better options than QB, but isn't pinning making money on your accounting program a stretch?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Nic said:
Does QB get the job done? Is it what my accountant uses? Good enough. IT guys complains?
Ah, but let's define "gets the job done." Is the job to "siphon my money to the accountants?" Then yes, it does that well.
Is the job to "help me make money" then no, it fails miserably.
What is the "job" that we are saying it does or doesn't do?
But those business people aren't looking at it like that, nor do they really care to... instead they are considering, is the actual job getting done, can they put invoices in? can they put payroll info in? can they put payables in? yes yes and yes - it does the job. Is the business still afloat - yes... then QB is fine for them.
A "business person", an emprasario, a businessman, a CEO... has one job, to make money. In a public company that is a legal constraint not just a general conceptual one. The purpose of a business is, by definition, to make money. In any case where "profit" is ignored in a business setting (ignored does not imply profit at any cost, you know what I mean) then they have failed at their only job. So, what I would consider by definition, QB is not fine for them and is not doing the job that they need it to do.
We are confusing the means with the ends. Getting caught in the weeds as they say looking at proximate goals and having failed to remember the actual goals of the business.
I don't consider myself or Nic caught in the weeds at all. Instead we are simply stating the status quo. granted that's not the point/purpose of this thread - which is to say that IT should not allow the owner's, CEOs, etc to think these are good decisions, even though we may be required to support them anyhow.
-
@BRRABill said:
Isn't it possible they could look at QB as a way to so the things already mentioned, and find other ways to make money?
Not saying there aren't better options than QB, but isn't pinning making money on your accounting program a stretch?
the problem with that is that, Scott is saying aren't just not making money with QB, instead they are actually wasting it, which of course we all understand is something we should not do.
-
Running Quickbooks is like....
...brushing your teeth with steel wool and battery acid.
...eating a peanut butter and broken glass sandwich.
...voting Republican.
...plucking your nose hairs through your tear ducts.
...enjoying a bud light.
-
Can anyone describe BRIEFLY how using QB is a cardinal sin, and not just a lousy option? It's obvious that all businesses who use QB are not destined to spontaneously combust, but could make better decisions about the software they choose to rely on. It is also obvious that pizza is probably not the best dietary staple (strictly from a health perspective, so don't shoot me!), but I can most likely live a long and happy life while enjoying more than a fair share of it. Ergo, why all the fuss? The OP made a good point that IT (when allowed to influence decisions on these things, which are not technically an IT issue) should never be a group of "yes-men" when it comes to applauding poor business decisions. QB is a good example of a less-than-optimal product. Making a 50-post string out of "anyone who uses QB should be tarred and feathered and never allowed to step foot into a business again" is a bit of a stretch from the OP.
-
@BRRABill said:
Isn't it possible they could look at QB as a way to so the things already mentioned, and find other ways to make money?
Not saying there aren't better options than QB, but isn't pinning making money on your accounting program a stretch?
Making money? No, not losing money is the goal of infrastructure. To be efficient and cost effective. Throwing money away either in hard cash (buying things that cost too much or are not needed) and/or by paying people to do things that are not effective and/or putting the business at risk are not stretches in the least. That's pretty much the entire job of IT - to oversee the implementation of systems that enable the business to either make more or lose less money. That is, in actuality, the only thing that IT does. Accounting software is one of the more critical systems in any business because, with rare exception, because knowing where the money is is pretty critical in an organization whose purpose is making money.
This isn't just not a stretch, it is actually the only job of both the IT department AND the business management itself! If we skip on this, what is the function of either department?
