Running Quickbooks is like....
-
@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?
-
@art_of_shred said:
Can anyone describe BRIEFLY how using QB is a cardinal sin, and not just a lousy option?
Given the roles of management and IT, lousy options are cardinal sins. There is only one job to do. Implementing QB is like taking your car to the body shop to get a dent removed and them taking keys to it instead and messing it up - it's the opposite of the job that they are brought in to do.
-
@art_of_shred said:
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.
Once a business recognizes that it is making bad decisions and continuous to make them, it is intentionally throwing money away. In a publicly traded company, once you get to the point that you can reasonably prove this, it actually moves into the realm of "civil suit". It's an important enough aspect of business that the core public corporation laws center around it.
-
Freshbooks is another good alternative to QB. QB is entrenched which is why they have momentum to keep making money. But like all dinosaurs they'll eventually go extinct. Having supported the product as a sysadmin, and worked at Intuit both in support and as their community manager, I'm well away of all the faults and the reasons for them. But like most all publicly traded companies they only care about the bottom line. And like most large companies they can no longer innovate so once QB starts losing out to someone they'll buy them out like they did with Mint.
-
@Nic said:
But like most all publicly traded companies they only care about the short term stock price.
FTFY
-
True - that's all the stock market cares about these days.
-
@Nic said:
True - that's all the stock market cares about these days.
it's a tough one as the needs of a public company for profit is so different from the needs of a private one for profit. What makes sense to HP or IBM (selling off key divisions that feed their customer chain) would be insane for Dell (wanting to actually grow and accumulate money.)
This is a place where I see a lot of IT people struggle - they will often see actions that make huge positive stock price gains as evil or sabotage and really have a hard time accepting what "profitable" means to a public company.
Example: how all high end IT staff are long term consultants at many investment banks and entry level IT staff are high risk standard employees. Layoff rounds only impact the lower ranked employees because investors don't see contractors in the same way.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@art_of_shred said:
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.
Once a business recognizes that it is making bad decisions and continuous to make them, it is intentionally throwing money away. In a publicly traded company, once you get to the point that you can reasonably prove this, it actually moves into the realm of "civil suit". It's an important enough aspect of business that the core public corporation laws center around it.
Right, and that's why everyday we see news about companies whose shareholders are suing the CEO because the IT guy "allowed" the business to burn their profits by using QB...
-
It keeps getting asked and I think it has been stated over and over but just in case it was missed, here it is again:
Quickbooks is bad because it lacks upsides while bringing huge caveats both financial and technical.
We can dive into the details of these, but that is definitely higher up in the thread. But the high level is that QB is a problem because it hurts businesses by wasting money, increasing support cost, being inefficient and putting the business at risk. It is all negatives, all caveats. In what way can you implement QB to the benefit of a business?
-
@art_of_shred said:
Right, and that's why everyday we see news about companies whose shareholders are suing the CEO because the IT guy "allowed" the business to burn their profits by using QB...
No successful company runs QB, not a real concern.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
It keeps getting asked and I think it has been stated over and over but just in case it was missed, here it is again:
Quickbooks is bad because it lacks upsides while bringing huge caveats both financial and technical.
We can dive into the details of these, but that is definitely higher up in the thread. But the high level is that QB is a problem because it hurts businesses by wasting money, increasing support cost, being inefficient and putting the business at risk. It is all negatives, all caveats. In what way can you implement QB to the benefit of a business?
Well, to do what it is used to do. You need to make invoices, and to track payments, and other financial things which QB does. There's the upside. I understand the point that you are trying to make, but you're marginalizing any appearance of being reasonable or sane to make the point that bad decisions about foundational pieces of a business are important. Yeah, I get that. But no matter how you spin it, the bottom line is that businesses exist and function daily and can make a profit and continue to exist, despite the fact that they may have made a poor choice to go with QB. There's a ton of gray shades on this issue; it's not QB=death.
-
@art_of_shred said:
Well, to do what it is used to do. You need to make invoices, and to track payments, and other financial things which QB does. There's the upside. I understand the point that you are trying to make, but you're marginalizing any appearance of being reasonable or sane to make the point that bad decisions about foundational pieces of a business are important. Yeah, I get that. But no matter how you spin it, the bottom line is that businesses exist and function daily and can make a profit and continue to exist, despite the fact that they may have made a poor choice to go with QB. There's a ton of gray shades on this issue; it's not QB=death.
And, we can defend businesses doing that all that we want, but at the end of the day we have only a single job: to do this better than a business could do without us (hopefully by a margin large enough to justify our cost.)
