4 Rules of Thumb for Fiscally Fit Business

4 Rules of Thumb for Fiscally Fit Business

4-rules-of-thumbMost folks who start a new business go in to it with a rather naïve belief that a good idea, product, service and/or group of people can be successful just because their idea, product, service or people are good.  Unfortunately, that isn’t’t the reality of starting up and running a business.  Regardless of how great and innovative the idea is, the business only works if it is sustainable and profitable.  Otherwise, it was just a great idea.  For many entrepreneurs, developing an understanding of the financial underpinnings of running a company isn’t the most exciting of ideas.  The compulsion is to outsource the responsibility to someone else like an accountant or financial advisor. While I completely and utterly agree that every business owner should work closely with their accounting professional and financial advisor, I also know that those very same business owners will get more value from their advisors if they have a common language to speak (business finance) and are working toward a common goal.  The goal is fiscal fitness – the creation of a sustainable and profitable business. Just as physical fitness supports a healthy body, fiscal fitness supports a healthy business.

The successful business operating in this economy adheres closely to 4 main beliefs, rules of thumb perhaps, relating to fiscal management and fitness and which are generally communicated in detail using the language of business finance.

Rule 1. Plan before you start.  Then plan some more.  Starting a business isn’t like going to college; you’re supposed to know what you’re going to do BEFORE you start up rather than paying to explore the options.  It is also very important to recognize that the plan may require some adjustments as you go along (“No plan survives contact with the enemy”), taking care to not equate focus with intractability.  This plan should also include the “exit strategy”, which is really a plan for what the owner wants to ultimately get out of the effort.  It could be a plan to sell out for gobs of money, to leave a legacy for the children, or maybe just to have an awesome quality of life and do what they love at the same time.  Knowing what it will take to get in, get it done, and get out the way you want is all part of the plan.

Rule 2. Keep a close eye on the numbers.  No, not all of them, but the really important ones.  Some of these numbers have to do with the relationships between price, volume and cost.  This is the stuff a business owner needs to know like the back of their hand – hairs and all.  Not every business will focus on the same key numbers (mostly, but there are certainly variations), but every business owner should know what to look for.  And they should be looking very frequently so things don’t get out of whack before corrections can be made.

Rule 3. Manage the cash, manage the growth, and know how one impacts the other. Cash flow and growth are priorities number 1 and 1 in business but they aren’t the same thing.  Consider that reducing prices (and profits) to get more sales may work as long as the volume of sales supports the effort and generates the cash.  Without the extra sales revenue to rely on, reducing profits could result in devastation (maybe sticking with the prices the way they are and not pushing for fast growth is a better idea).

Rule 4.  If you must borrow, be informed and do it smartly.  There are a lot of different options for borrowing money for the business, just as there are a lot of different reasons to do it.  There is a great deal of research available which describes the benefits of borrowers being educated in basic financial literacy, with better financial decision-making being among those benefits.  Looking for financing is kind of like choosing between the apple and the candy bar: one may promote the fitness you’re looking for while the other does not (but it looks sweet!).  It’s nice to have the foundation to support knowing which one you should choose.

Building and maintaining a fit business requires an understanding of how the business works – how and why it makes and spends money, what makes it profitable and what it takes to create and support growth.  While outside advisors may be available to help, the best performance is achieved when the business owner masters the essential skills required to run and grow a fiscally fit and sustainable business.

Joanie Mann Bunny Feet

Make Sense?

J

Measure, Manage and Succeed.  It’s all about knowing how to speak the language of finance

Servicing Fundamentals: Are Vertical Software Products Becoming Obsolete?

Servicing Fundamentals: Are Vertical Software Products Becoming Obsolete?

As mobility and the Internet continue to drive changes in how people interact with technology and each other, businesses are finding that the compelling arguments presented by many cloud service providers are tough to ignore.  Anytime/anywhere/anymode access to business applications and data, focusing on core business issues and outsourcing non-core processes, streamlining and connecting processes to create efficiency and predictability in operations – these are the benefits which “connected” and cloud technology models are delivering.  Cost efficiencies in supporting business operations are also being experienced, as the outsource IT solution often provides fault tolerance, scalability and performance at cost and service levels difficult to achieve with in-house systems and personnel.  The scale economies of the cloud cannot be argued with, and it is this cost-efficient and effective provisioning of fundamental business services to users that is increasingly pressuring vertical software makers to either address the market with more fundamentally useful tools incorporated into their products or risk losing users to generalized and commonly used solutions.

Consider that many accounting solutions today have introduced the ability to connect document files to transactions.  It makes sense, and provides a basic capability for accounting/bookkeeping which is necessary.  On the other hand, what happens to the rest of the documents used in the business – the ones that aren’t associated with a financial transaction?  And, if there isn’t mobile access to the accounting system, how are those attached documents made available to remote users and mobile devices? Another thing to think about is the fact that users now have the ability to interact with various files and applications natively on mobile devices, as opposed to having specialized applications to access limited data sets.  File sharing applications and productivity tools are widely used by these mobile users, as they provide the flexibility to seamlessly access files regardless of device or location.  This fundamental benefit of simple and affordable information access, storage and sharing is proving the value of a generalized approach to enabling users and helps to explain why the operating and file systems were the previous “killer apps” in computing technology.  The question for vertical software developers now is whether or not they can effectively incorporate these popular services into their solution, or if the solution must limit its focus on addressing only the truly unique elements of the business rather than the general or fundamental ones.

A great discussion on the subject is an article on PrismLegal.com where author Ron Friedmann describes his similar question in the context of Box.com increasing use in law office environments and how this impacts the legal software market.

More generally, it should cause us to question the future of legal market specific software. I understand the need for customized software; for example, I am currently involved with developing and deploying legal project management software (Cael LPM™ by Elevate Services). But the market – both customers and vendors – must balance the need to meet legal specific requirements with economics and scale.

Box and other cloud providers can potentially sell millions of seats to thousands of organizations. Contrast that enormous reach, which spreads development cost over so many users, with legal market scale. The large law firm market has no more than 400 organizations and 500,000 seats. The development and service cost per user is much higher. Nonetheless, many companies have prospered creating highly customized software for the legal market. In the age of cloud and economies of scale, however, will those economics still be so favorable?

There will always be a place for vertical and industry-specific solutions of certain types, but there is an increasingly large population of businesses which have adopted generalized solutions to address fundamental business requirements, and users (and solution providers) are recognizing that these essential solutions are meeting the majority of the business requirement without specialization (and additional cost) required.

jmbunnyfeetMake Sense?

J

Read more about Cloud Computing for Small Business: It’s All About 3 Apps

Read about why Lawyer Immunity from Delivering Customer Value is No More

Read about The Line in the Sand: Your RPO (Recovery Point Objective)

4 Rules of Thumb Regarding Workers Compensation Insurance for Employers

In two previous “4 Rules of Thumb” articles, I discussed a few things that businesses can do to create the best possible environment for engaging new customers and providing quality service (4 Rules of Thumb for Business Success) and provided additional tidbits for service businesses – things the company can do to make sure that the work is done completely and correctly the first time, which is what leads to happy and loyal customers (4 Rules for Building Service Customer Loyalty).

This article is focused a bit more internally to the business, discussing a few of the risks and considerations surrounding those dreaded tax burden issues: Unemployment Insurance, Worker Classification and Workers Compensation Insurance. 

Unemployment insurance is one of those items that most businesses pay attention to, because rates are impacted based on unemployment claims made and paid. The cost of unemployment insurance is usually calculated just like workers’ compensation, using standardized arithmetic formulas based on the profile and past record of the company.

Workers Compensation insurance is sort of the “elephant in the room” of compliance – it’s a big problem that is frequently the last item of consideration in business compliance and reporting. It is also an item that frequently goes without scrutiny at the state level, so little attention is generally given it by accounting and human resource professionals.

Workers Comp is one of those payroll reports where you select from a broad list of categories relating (hopefully fairly closely) to the work your people do, you calculate the cost, and you pay the fees.

Ideally you’re classifying workers properly in terms of their being employees versus independent contractors – this being the big focus of most workers comp audits and where many advisors say to pay attention. If you use a company to perform some of the work of your business, also pay close attention to the concept of joint-employer status (see article on joint employer status).

An equally big issue – the issue that impacts the business owner perhaps more than the employee – is classifying worker activities too broadly, potentially costing the business hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars in annual workers comp premiums. Improper classification of worker activities can lead not just to increased premium costs, but heavy penalties in the event of a claim finding the worker was not properly covered.

Most workers compensation policies issue blanket risk classifications, yet how these classifications are used in different industries is where the secrets of cost savings exist.  In the moving and storage industry, for example, the risk is in the warehouse. If a clerk or administrative worker enters the warehouse, that employee is now actually working under a different classification. However, if the worker often checks warehouse inventory or sells items from the warehouse as part of their sales job, they may operate under yet another classification.

There is a balance required when seeking to reduce premiums while keeping the company compliant.  Many companies consider caution to be more affordable than keeping highly detailed activity and work classification records, finding that reporting workers in higher cost work categories is more cost effective than paying for the labor intensive effort of capturing, analyzing and reporting in more detail. That is, until a worker is injured and the risk wasn’t disclosed through accurate workers compensation reporting.

When it comes to workers compensation insurance for the business, give these 4 compliance rules of thumb some strong consideration.

Rule 1: Get informed and get help.

It’s OK for a business owner to not be the expert in all facets of compliance and reporting – – you have accountants and tax advisers that can gain this knowledge from their annual CPE (continuing professional education). The potential costs of mis-handling workers compensation and other aspects of having employees are too great to risk being uninformed and unprepared.

Rule 2: Call an employee an employee

Classifying workers will turn out better for all parties in the long run even if it seems like the more expensive way to go. Misclassification of employee workers as contractors hurts everyone, eventually. There is a big problem with businesses misclassifying workers as contractors rather than as employees, sometimes to avoid paying taxes and benefits, but sometimes not just for that reason. When classified as contractors, workers are generally not covered by the various protections and do not get the benefits that employees do.

Some business owners who are unsure of the state administrative rules may pay workers compensation premiums for workers that are truly independent contractors. Other businesses may require workers to have a workers compensation account as a condition of employment. Either way it is being done improperly and one party or the other ends up bearing unnecessary cost and/or risk.

The unfortunate result is that employers are bearing larger than necessary burdens of supporting injured workers and the unemployed.

Deliberate mis-classification can save dishonest contractors upwards of 30 percent in payroll and other taxes, but for workers, taxpayers and honest employers, the practice amounts to millions in lost wages and revenue. – See more at:

http://www.ibew.org/articles/13ElectricalWorker/EW1305/Misclassification.0513.html#sthash.7u1vtjW

Rule 3: Details Details Details.

Worker classification done properly can save businesses a lot of money simply by being more accurate. Yes, there may be tradeoffs in terms of labor to perform the calculations and reporting, but it can prove to be well worth the effort.

Particularly in businesses where workers may perform multiple duties or work in a variety of locations and conditions, there is value in delving into the details of time, location and work performed to make sure the business is adequately covering itself. Filling out the report by simply selecting the broad category that “seems most likely” is not the best way to go. There are details in the rules, and the smart business takes advantage rather than being surprised by them.

A home installation satellite company did not keep sufficient records for their most hazardous business classification: tower work. During the audit, all their hours were assessed in this one classification that was six times the reported amount. – See more at:http://cath235lni.wordpress.com/

Rule 4: If there is a worker injury claim, pay attention and deal with it right away.

While it seems somewhat like getting car insurance after the wreck, there may be some risk mitigation that can occur if the issue is dealt with directly and in a timely manner – possibly avoiding a claims nightmare.

The last item is more of a suggestion than a rule, which is to be fair and truthful. Treating employees well is part of growing a successful team that will propel the business towards success.

Surprisingly enough, the benefits to the business may not only be a more productive and happier workforce, but lower risk exposure and lower workers comp premiums due to more detailed use of classifications in reporting.Tell employees and independent contractors what workers’ comp does for them – it’s essentially a medical and lost wage policy to protect them and those close to them.

Explaining to employees that keeping the boss informed about what is happening in the plant or in the field is simply part of helping ensure their proper protection.

Joanie Mann Bunny FeetMake Sense?

J

Many thanks to my friend Ted Carlson, Certified Fraud Examiner (retired), a veteran of the Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) in Washington State – responsible for Tax Discovery and Fraud Prevention field Audits. 

The Line in the Sand: Your RPO (Recovery Point Objective)

The Line in the Sand: Your RPO (Recovery Point Objective)

IMG_0108Businesses and individuals are increasingly more dependent upon the technology supporting their various activities, and the volume and velocity of information moving through these systems is increasing at astonishing rates.  With the growing reliance on information technology and electronic business data, you’d think that more businesses were paying close attention to protecting these assets. I recognize that there is a broad understanding of responsibilities as they pertain to system security, and businesses of all sizes and types are increasing their awareness of the variety of threats facing their systems and are taking steps to address them.  Yet there remains an aspect of business data protection that too few businesses are really zeroing in on, and that is the time and complexity of recovering or restoring business data in the event of an outage or loss – and the absolute line drawn in the sand which says that “here” is the tolerable loss we can experience: no more and no less.

This line in the sand is referred to as the RPO, or Recovery Point Objective. A recovery point objective is part of the business continuity plan (or should be!), and describes the maximum tolerable period of time for which data might be lost from a major IT service incident.  The necessity to establish this time frame – the RPO – exists whether the business is small or large.  In fact, small businesses have data protection needs quite similar to their enterprise counterparts.  In an article in SmallBusinessComputing.com, Kieran Maloney of Quantum Corporation is quoted as saying that “from a data protection standpoint, smaller businesses face challenges that are similar to those of larger enterprises; the amount, and the value, of their data is growing significantly while their budgets are not”.

What doesn’t seem to make sense is that businesses continue to view data backup as a necessary evil rather than a strategic element, and spending considerations for creating and meeting a realistic RPO remain low.  An article in TheStreet.com on the subject quotes Terry Cunningham, president and manager of EVault, saying “When largely preventable data loss conservatively costs businesses hundreds of millions of dollars annually, it is time to rethink your priorities”.  The author also writes that “while 95 percent of US IT decision makers said they have some type of disaster recovery plan in place, only 44 percent have remote, cloud-based recovery capabilities… More than twenty percent of IT organizations that manage between 2-7 TB of data suffered a data loss in the past year – in fact, more than half of this group suffered 2-3 data losses – each with an estimated average cost of 2-5 percent of total company revenues”.

Part of the continuity plan and a consideration in developing an approach which will meet the RPO timeframe should be the implementation of remote cloud based service, yet this has remained a low priority for many business owners.  Reliance upon more traditional data protection approaches, including tape backups and on-premises HDD solutions provides IT managers with a false sense of security and often cannot even reasonably address recovery from data loss due to hardware outages, much less for potentially catastrophic failures including loss of the location.

When considering the RPO – the minimum acceptable point for data recovery (or maximum tolerable point for loss) – businesses must look at their data management and backup strategies in order to address recovery approaches for various types of outages.  There are benefits and drawbacks associated with the different methods of backing up data, and the cost/benefit of employing any solution must factor in to the requirement to meet the stated RPO.  Daily backups may be the standard procedure, but is a potential loss of 24 hours of data acceptable to the business?  On the other hand, what is the potential cost of re-creating the data, if it can even be recreated?  Consider also that the timeframe for data recovery is not the point at which the last backup was completed; it is the point when the last backup was started.  This could result in a loss window greater than the established 24-hour boundary.

Many businesses would suggest that their tolerance for lost data – due to the cost of lost productivity and order activities – is far less than 24 hours, yet solutions employed to reduce the potential data losses often do not fully address the issue in any comprehensive manner.   IT personnel working with separate products to handle incremental data backups, machine recovery (bare metal) and snapshots of disk arrays often have a tough time trying to piece together the various pieces of the puzzle and often simply hope for the best in terms of outcome.

The prudent move is to thoroughly consider the business disaster recovery and continuity plan, and establish the boundaries for tolerable loss.  No business wants to expect to lose valuable data assets, but expecting technology to perform flawlessly is unrealistic, not to mention the unexpected impacts from acts of nature or other forces majeure.  Architecting systems to withstand service outages and having a comprehensive plan for recovering from system outages in a timeframe survivable by the business is the essential element to making a continuity plan worthwhile.  Draw the line in the sand, and then develop the system protection and recovery plan that will help make sure you never have to step over it.

Make Sense?

J

Here are a few data loss statistics for your reading pleasure… Enjoy  🙂

(stats drawn from summary on BostonComputing.net.  They may be a bit dated, but the numbers have only increased since then.) http://www.bostoncomputing.net/consultation/databackup/statistics/

The following statistics were gathered from various sources:

  • 6% of all PCs will suffer an episode of data loss in any given year. Given the number of PCs used in US businesses in 1998, that translates to approximately 4.6 million data loss episodes. At a conservative estimate, data loss cost US businesses $11.8 billion in 1998. (The Cost Of Lost Data, David M. Smith)
  • 30% of all businesses that have a major fire go out of business within a year. 70% fail within five years. (Home Office Computing Magazine)
  • 31% of PC users have lost all of their files due to events beyond their control.
  • 34% of companies fail to test their tape backups, and of those that do, 77% have found tape back-up failures.
  • 60% of companies that lose their data will shut down within 6 months of the disaster.
  • 93% of companies that lost their data center for 10 days or more due to a disaster filed for bankruptcy within one year of the disaster. 50% of businesses that found themselves without data management for this same time period filed for bankruptcy immediately. (National Archives & Records Administration in Washington)
  • American business lost more than $7.6 billion as a result of viruses during first six months of 1999. (Research by Computer Economics)
  • Companies that aren’t able to resume operations within ten days (of a disaster hit) are not likely to survive. (Strategic Research Institute)
  • Every week 140,000 hard drives crash in the United States. (Mozy Online Backup)
  • Simple drive recovery can cost upwards of $7,500 and success is not guaranteed

 

Lawyer Immunity from Delivering Customer Value is No More

Lawyer Immunity from Delivering Customer Value is No More

All indications are that business and revenue growth for law firms is no longer a function of head count.  As with other professional service providers, lawyers are experiencing increased competition from a variety of new sources, and client demands and needs are changing as society adopts and embraces technology, social computing, and self-service solutions.  The problem is that many partners and firm leaders don’t really know what do to about it, and are attempting to fuel continued growth of revenues and profitability while essentially maintaining status quo.

Looking to reduce costs and pushing for more billable hours is standard fare among firm managers, yet the results to be gained from these efforts have pretty much reached their maximum potential.  You can only cut so much, and you can only work your people so hard.  Unfortunately, many partners and managers simply look away from the problem and continue along the path that has been successful in the past.  But growth has slowed, revenues have not grown as expected, and firms are literally being forced to adjust to market forces or go out of business.  It’s just too competitive and the pace of change is too rapid.  There is no immunity for lawyers in this changing market – service quality and value must improve.

Instead of taking the legacy approach of hiring more people so they can bill for more hours, successful firms are taking a few queues from other professional service providers and are recognizing that individualized client service, consistently high-quality and timely service, and service priced commensurate with the value delivered are at least parts of the solution.

There is quite a lot that law firms and accounting firms have in common, particularly when it comes to the fact that most of these entities are viewed – perhaps rightly so – as being “old school”, with a managing partner or board with intractable views and grey hair.  Lawyers, like accountants, are inherently wary of new-fangled concepts and wild ideas.  They’re a cautious bunch, and tend to be resistant to change.  Yet accounting professionals are beginning to embrace new tools and new ideas when it comes to delivering service and value, and forward-thinking law firms are following suit.

For successful firms, the focus is on the client and the value delivered – on internal process improvements and a better value proposition for the customer – not on the billable hour.  Yes, there are investments required.  The firm must invest time most of all.  It takes time to get everyone educated about issues the firm is facing in the changing marketplace.  Unless everyone knows what they’re up against, there will be continued resistance to new ideas and concepts.  It also takes time with clients to understand their needs, which is the essential element to delivering service valuable to them.  And it takes time to develop and nurture a long-term vision, recognizing that the vision may change as conditions change, and that regular monitoring and adjustment may be necessary.

Investing time and consideration in these areas is the key to delivering customer (and shareholder) value.  The result is satisfied and loyal clients, repeat business and increased growth and profitability.  Rather than viewing this brave new world as a challenge to the firm’s traditional model, it should be viewed as the opportunity to deliver new and greater value to the firm’s customers.

Make Sense?

J

Growing Up: Software buying decisions throughout the business life cycle

Two-TallThere are two certainties in life – death and taxes. While both are unavoidable, at least the taxes issue can be managed. Managing taxes and business finances in general takes detailed information. Considering how most small businesses get their start with business bookkeeping and accounting, it’s no surprise that information gathering becomes one of the most time-consuming and frustrating tasks around tax time. Fixing the problem from the beginning and implementing a system to manage the detailed information the business needs on an ongoing basis is key to avoiding the rush as well as building a business information framework that might span the life of the business entity.  Yet fixing the problem for this year’s tax information gathering is relatively simple compared to figuring out how to format, retain, and continuously collect and compile new data for analysis throughout the life of the business.

In order to understand how to address the problem, it is important to understand the evolution of business accounting. Not how the concepts or practices have evolved, but how technology has (or has not) been applied to certain problems, and where the gaps are.

Starting Up

The first things a new business owner generally does is get a business license, get a computer, and run down to the discount store to buy a copy of QuickBooks or maybe Microsoft Excel. Now, this business owner isn’t necessarily prepared to properly handle the accounting for the business, but he understands that he has to do something. Keeping a check register, at the minimum, lets him know how much money is in the bank. And that’s what it’s all about for the small business person – cash flow and cash availability. But the focus on the checkbook frequently causes the business to postpone implementing deeper, more beneficial processes.

With a focus on the checkbook, the business manages cash by counting payments out and receipts in. But the nature of the payment or the receipt is the true question that must be answered and accounted for. It is surprising how many businesses still keep ledger cards – those manual 3×5’s in a box – where customer and vendor information is kept. It is a simple method, and provides the business a way to keep individual account records. But the fact that this detail information is not part of an integrated system creates a greater potential for lost or inaccurate data. Further, the greater the volume the more difficult and error-prone managing the information becomes.

It is at this point that the business seeks to find a more comprehensive means to manage the additional business data. This is another buying decision the business owner must make, introducing a new system which can handle the additional activities around accounts receivable, accounts payable, inventory and sales orders, etc. The business was already keeping track of products or services, customers and vendors. But here we are at a step where new systems and processes must be introduced. Although a belated effort, this after-the-fact implementation of customer, vendor and item tracking now establishes the means to manage more business activities as part of an integrated system.

The difficulty comes in loading the historic information and learning new systems. Depending on volume, the quality of the manually kept data, etc., it may be determined that historic transaction details are not to be entered. So, the business moves forward with a better system for managing business activities and data, but loses the value of the early transaction detail.

Volume and Growth

The business has implemented an accounting system which helps to keep track of customers, vendors, items, and cash. More detailed processes are introduced as the business requirement grows – offering perhaps more specific information on costs of certain products, or summaries of customer purchases or item sales activity. This data provides a much more informed basis for business decision-making, but also impacts the systems as the volume of data to be managed grows.

Growth may present itself in many ways – growth in the number of products or services offered, growth in the number of transactions processed regularly, growth in the dollar value of transactions, or growth in the number of employees who need access to the system. All of these areas impact the ability of the system to continue to support the business requirements. Quite frequently, a certain “density of data” is reached and the current system is not able to efficiently manipulate and manage the volume. Here again is another buying decision. Can the existing system be expanded to handle the additional volume? Or must a new system yet again be introduced? The business process requirements may not have changed, but the earlier choice of systems may cause a forced change simply due to business volume or number of users.

The frustrations of changing business systems are compounded the further into the business life cycle the change comes. Much of the historic intelligence of the business is derived from the earlier days of operation; data which reflects the stages and activities of the business over time. When a business reaches a point where data volumes force a systems change, a worst-case scenario occurs: The volume of historic data is too great for the current system, and loading it into a new system takes a huge amount of time and effort. Unfortunately, this task often proves too daunting for the company, so again valuable historic detail information is lost and summary information is loaded into the new system.

Operationally Specific Systems

As the business matures – and in order for the business to mature in a healthy manner – specific and detailed information must be captured and analyzed. Systems which take a broad view of the business, offering only general information and process support, frequently do not supply the business with the levels of intelligence truly required. For example, a manufacturing business needs to fully understand and manage the manufacturing processes and materials supply chain to ensure profitability and consistent product quality. A retailer needs to know which products sell in which markets in order to ensure product stock and availability to key customers. And all of this information is time-critical if the business is to make necessary adjustments in time to benefit from them.

This level of detail can only come from a system which incorporates a certain specific orientation towards the operational processes of the business. The fact of selling a product to a customer is an activity which gets recorded, but the additional details of the customer location, pricing levels, purchasing levels, salesman, inventory item, and warehouse location tell the rest of the story. Over time, the business owner can then better understand customer purchasing habits, inventory item turnover, supplier dependencies – a wealth of business intelligence. This data is then used to assist the business owner or management in determining the specific activities or actions necessary to keep the business moving forward and improving performance.

In the end, it is the demonstration of well-defined processes, deep insight into the business operational metrics and financial performance, and the ability to effectively and accurately report on this information that creates a basis for provable business value.

No Best Answer

When looking at the business accounting and finance systems available in the market – particularly considering those which have earned a level of market share – there are visible gaps – big ones. This is clearly reflected in the numbers, where Intuit QuickBooks leads in the small business market, but has no reciprocal in the midrange or enterprise markets. QuickBooks fits into that early space, where the business is just starting out and, maybe, extending into keeping more detailed customer, vendor and item information. MS Excel is also a winner for very small and new businesses, as the spreadsheet is a simple and easy solution to creating an electronic check register. But there comes a point where a business has requirements that extend beyond the ability of the small business software. Sometimes, the mere thought of change is so abhorrent (usually based on a bad initial implementation experience) that the business attempts to use the software far beyond what it was built to handle.

Other application makers offer systems that have a number of small business features, but that also offer more in-depth or complex capabilities to handle the growing business. These systems, too, have a great potential to be outgrown, and can be costly implementations which handle only a portion of the business life cycle.

Larger, module-based systems and frameworks offer a broad range of functionality, integration, and data management capability. They typically address more – and more detailed – business processes, and can scale to very large sizes. But the cost and complexity of these systems is often the barrier, and given that there is no clear seed product (small business version of the big business software), the upgrade path is unclear and problematic. Given the huge gap between the “typical” small business system and the upper-levels in the enterprise applications catalogue – the transition from very small to very large software is not likely to be made in a single step.

Losing intelligence with each step

Each stage of business requirement typically drives to a buying decision. This buying decision is met with angst, as considerations include not only cost, but data conversion vs re-loading, new process or system design and setup, user training, proofing the system (running parallel?) and a host of other issues, not the least of which is the business benefit to be derived.

The emergence of SaaS solutions and multitenant web applications has compounded this issue, as there is a tendency for such solutions to provide only list data and other easily exported data.  Transaction information and details are frequently unavailable for export to another solution, or the data may be exported but not necessarily in a meaningful form.

Small Businesses should be particularly concerned about whether or not the solution will fit the needs of the business for an extended period of time and through a variety of business conditions. The small business should also determine if there is a way to continue use of the solution (or transition from the solution) if the solution or the provider stop meeting the needs of the business. Small business owners are particularly at risk, because the SaaS solutions oriented towards small business users often don’t have the on-premises options that some of their enterprise counterparts offer. And small businesses are the ones who are most likely to need to transition to another solution as the business grows. Further, the small business user often lacks the technical knowledge to manage the conversion effectively, and doesn’t typically employ skilled in-house IT personnel to handle it for them. The result: consulting dollars get spent, just to retain the data the business already has.  http://jcmann.blogspot.com/2009/11/salvaging-business-intelligence.html

If information is power, too many businesses are losing that power when they migrate from one software product to another – they are losing valuable historic information by leaving transaction and other detail data behind when they convert from one system to another.  This should be an area of focus and key discussion point when any change to systems is considered.  After all, the insight and business intelligence gathered over the years was likely instrumental in helping the small business grow up to become a successful big business, and will continue to be important for years to come.

jmbunnyfeetMake Sense?

J