Running Quickbooks is like....
-
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.)
-
@scottalanmiller said:
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.)
It's not about defending the poor decisions that businesses make. I'm very much not in their defense. Most people who start a small business (I would assume 90% of QB's market) are good at what they do... or at least the 10% of anything/anyone that are actually good at what they do. Those who are good at whatever it is that they do, and venture off on their own enterprise, probably have a hard time delegating the responsibility for something as critical/foundational as the tool to be used to handle their business finances. if they have an "IT dept.", that person(s) probably doesn't have much say in the decision. In most cases, they may be able to have an opinion, and in that case, they would be wise to advise against QB in favor of one of the other mentioned options. If, God-forbid, the owner elects to use QB, it's a bad decision. They probably aren't informed enough to make a good decision, and QB is a well-marketed name. I'm not saying that it excuses them, but most people aren't that diligent in every detail. It doesn't make them bad people or inept business owners. It makes them normal human beings. If their business eventually fails, it is highly likely that the single decision to use QB was not the stake through the heart of the venture.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
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.)This is easy to agree with, but then I think that we're using a poor example to prop this up. If IT's job is to save the business money and make things run more efficiently, why not talk about actual IT concerns, like servers, switches, virtualization, VDI, etc.? Why QuickBooks? Should the decision of what accounting program to use be an IT-based decision? It might be, but I doubt many business owners would see it that way.
-
@art_of_shred said:
@scottalanmiller said:
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.)This is easy to agree with, but then I think that we're using a poor example to prop this up. If IT's job is to save the business money and make things run more efficiently, why not talk about actual IT concerns, like servers, switches, virtualization, VDI, etc.? Why QuickBooks? Should the decision of what accounting program to use be an IT-based decision? It might be, but I doubt many business owners would see it that way.
Oh absolutely! This is incredibly core to IT functionality. Why would one set of IT items like hardware be considered IT but not the most important part, the software?
Any application matters... if it is important enough to be running it, it is important enough to know how to run it reliably and protect it. What good would IT be if we were just there to do the trivial stuff and all of the important technology decisions were made by others? If the important decisions aren't with IT, why would you keep IT around?
Is there any role where IT is more important than the ERP / accounting systems? Maybe, maybe the core business applications but maybe not even there. The more critical the data, the more important it be protected, backed up, have DR plans, be supported, etc. If someone other than IT is doing those roles, that other department has become more IT than IT is. In a very small business, the accounting software is easily the only IT decision to make. Even before IT would start to do cabling, a first switch, a first firewall for a one person company there is a need for accounting. It is kind of "IT job one."
The issues around QB are two fold: one is that it is neither effective nor fiscally responsible, but those are business decisions which is why I keep pointing out that the business managers need to make good decisions too. But the other is technical. IT needs to support and protect the software and QB specifically presents challenges as it is designed to make your data be at risk because they sell services around protecting you from... them. Kind of like mafia protection money: you actually pay the money to the people putting you at risk.
Talk about QB always centers around data corruption, inability to retrieve backups, loss of functionality, etc. Things that non-IT departments cannot address. QB presents significant technical issues that are hard to believe as no other major, accepted business product has those kinds of fragilities today. In no other normal arena is IT guidance so routinely disregarded, strangely. What is shocking is that the accounting and financial systems are often, in the SMB world, treated as the least important component of the information infrastructure.
-
We have customers who use QB, as well as Office 365, etc. The decisions about what the business owner chooses to use is not left to us. It is our job to support all of the above, whether we like it or not, or think it's good to use. Hence, the note that this decision is nearly always not left to the IT department to decide. If we're talking small business start-ups, there probably is no "IT guy" when that decision is made. Again, you are judging the whole process from the perspective of IT, and not the perspective of the owner. I agree with your "ideal" process, but that's just not how it usually works. If the IT department gets to weigh-in, smack down QB. If not, the world doesn't cease to spin. The picture you've been painting, whether you mean to or not, is that it does just that.
-
@art_of_shred said:
Again, you are judging the whole process from the perspective of IT, and not the perspective of the owner. I agree with your "ideal" process, but that's just not how it usually works. If the IT department gets to weigh-in, smack down QB. If not, the world doesn't cease to spin. The picture you've been painting, whether you mean to or not, is that it does just that.
Oh no, I'm judging it purely from the perspective of the business. IT is incidental here. It's all about risk and profit/loss that should be driving good business decision making.
There really is no IT without business (e.g. owner) perspective. The two are one and the same.
-
If we were to reduce this to a paper process and have nothing but business perspective...
One paper process is costly, requiring a large investment in special paper, pens, binders, etc. coming to hundreds of dollars a year. You have to install cabinets yourself, a copy machine, haul copies off to a storage unit once a week and the paper tends to deteriorate and need to be send to the paper mill for an expert to "recreate" a readable copy.
The other paper process you have someone stop by the office every day for free, they even drop off new paper and binders for you to use that day and they take the paper and handle the backups and stuff for you.
Reduce it to a completely non-IT dilemma and it remains the same.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Reduce it to a completely non-IT dilemma and it remains the same.
I'm not debating the validity of the claim, only the nature of the real-world effect. I'll say it one more time. If a business chooses to use something like QB, without the input of their IT department, it's not a business-ending decision. Period. In some cases, it might be, or be part of a pattern of poor decisions, but it in itself is NOT earth-shattering, the way you make it out to be. That's all. Every point that you re-tread over that it's bad is not nor has ever been contested. It's the "OMG, our hair is on fire!" conclusion that is drawn that I contest. Yeah, if you as an IT person who cares about doing your job well and wishes to influence your company in the direction of efficiency and success, you're a moron if you ever suggest or sit idly by when someone entertains the thought of using QB. Point taken. But, should one decide to use QB, it's not tantamount to the entire organization holding hands and jumping off a cliff. Period.
