Sage 100

4.5 standard - Currently using SWK Time and Billing module. Talked to SWK and TB is being discontinued. My client wants to upgrade to Sage 100 v53. What is everyone recommending for a time and billing solution for Sage 100?

As of when? This is the first I have heard of SWK discontinuing it. What is the last version available?

Doug: Are they also discontinuing their Time and Billing Professional? I have in the past upgraded clients from standard Time and Billing to Professional. In fact I have one client thinking of upgrading to 5.3 at the moment. If TB pro isn't available then we'll have to come up with another solution.

Yes they are discontinuing TB Professional too. They have a new product that is ERP agnostic... it runs on SQL db and currently only has an API for Sage 100 but they are creating APis for other ERP such as X3. I don't recall the name of the product because I didn't hear anything he said after he said it costs $15K- $20K.

Not sure when they are discontinuing. I think he said end of this year. I definitely don't want to upgrade to a product that is being discontinued and I doubt if my client will spring for $20K for its replacement.... particularly when it isn't native Sage 100 look and feel.

They also had the T&B Exact (TBX) with web interface. Is that still going to be around?

@JohnHoyt I believe that is the replacement for TB and TB Pro.

Sage really doesn't want to be in this business. Timeslips is all that is remaining as a product from Sage, and that is not very robust. TimeSheet was sold back to Insperity.

But what does TBx cost on subscription?

I hope you are joking John.

Sort of . . . it just seems like if it cost that much, it may be more palatable on subscription . . . with no up-front fee, of course (who does that, anyway?)

John, what is the business they do want to be in? They seem to only like the third party bolt-on business. They don't make anything Sage 100 anymore. Multi-bin, multi-currency, CRM, manufacturing, etc etc. These should all be in the core product. Add-ons used to be small custom programs for very specific needs. It's becoming impossible to manage these add-ons for any reasonable size business that needs them. And upgrades... I won't get into that, it's the weekend already.

Many of the specialized applications - EDI, POS, Time and Billing - were once State of the Art native apps, but they were ""sold off"" to third party developers, so Sage could concentrate on the core apps. Not sure if that was the reason or if they didn't think they had the resources or didn't want to be bothered. The biggest problem to me is Sage has not controlled the development standards. If they had, then most apps would work with the standard product and with each other. Many developers also don't seem to care about whether their mods work with others.

Not sure what core apps they have been concentrating on. Twenty five years ago, MAS90 was known for distribution, strong financial reporting, and light manufacturing. Today, it is difficult to make a case that Sage 100 is appropriate for any business segment unless it is for the smallest of companies. No native multi-bin, and as the percentage of distribution companies drop shipping orders has soared, obvious drop ship features have been ignored. There is a huge incongruity between the market Sage 100 is appropriate for and the market Sage perceives as its target. ie $5M distributuion companies don;t see the cost benefit of paying $10K annualy for maintenance / subscription. If you want to be a player in the $5M - 50M market you have to step up to the plate and invest in the features and technology. Putting some ""c"" lipstick on the 100 pig isn't going to cut it for a $30M growing distribution / light manufacturer.

We do not generally experience this negativity among users. Of our over 200 current Sage 100 customers, I can name maybe only 4 or 5 that are unhappy, but I know it is not specifically due to the software. And on the other end we have many raving customers. They actually love Sage and Sage 100. Many of those are in the range of 35 - 50+ users, with some over $50+ million in sales. Less than 5% complain about the cost of maintenance each year and those that are required to pay $18K - $30K continue to pay it without a word. This is the reality in dealing with our customers. Regarding the ""c"" version, users and prospects seem to like it very much and understand that it potentially may contribute to increased productivity. Those are just our users and prospects. Sage has their own statistics that bear that out. As for multi-bin, I don't remember anyone asking for it 15-20 years ago. It is a more recent requirement. I understand the need when customers keep bulk pallets in one area and single units in another, breaking pallets down when each's are required. That results in handling efficiencies. In many other cases, however, the need is based on poor planning, inefficient warehouse layout or insufficient warehouse space. Is that a reason to have a software feature? We all know that inventory problems are one of the top issues customers complain about from current users and prospects. Most of the other competitors of Sage have the same approach of depending on third parties to supply the specialized software that is not widely required. That works well and allows that third party to specialize and offer their software to users of many packages (FusionRMS comes to mind.) I reiterate that a big issue I have with Sage is that standards and compatibility have not been maintained or required with third party offerings. We were told that once programs were in framework, that would not be an issue, but it still is (it was apparently a myth). As far as I know, there is no Sage review of enhancements as there is with the Salesforce developer community and others. Perhaps I am wrong about this situation, and, if so, let me know. Don't interpret any of this as a Pollyanna outlook. I have plenty of things I don't like about Sage, and I voice them all the time. Because lately I get no satisfaction from my direct contacts, I probably need to start aiming higher. Not necessarily Mr. Kelly, but if I thought it would make a difference, I might.

@DougHiggs We have someone just beginning to implement the new TBX solution from SWK to replace their old Hightower T&B solution. Can keep you updated if you'd like.

For sure @alanniergarth . PLease keep me updated. What was the cost of the software, and the budgeted cost of the implementation?