General Consultant Discussion

Hi Everyone I wanted to share with you an email that I just sent to the 90 Minds administrative group. Hopefully people are as concerned as I am about the way the mid-market ERP products we've worked with for a good many years appear to be on the harvest/sunset list. I would love to hear your feedback about whether this group should expand --- or is just having a good technical discussion (I call this break - fix) are enough? EMAIL TO ADMIN: It is apparent that virtually the entire mid-market portfolio of ERP products - Sage 100, 300, 500 - is being marginalized by Sage. By virtue of Sage's negligent treatment of the knowledgebase, the Sage annual earnings (which mentions barely any products except Sage One and ERP X3), and the apparent conversion of Sage Summit into a transaction event (trade show) vs learning event (conference) - I think the trend at Sage will be toward global products sold directly or through a more exclusive channel (ERP X3). It's crucial as leaders of the 90 Minds group we actively think how best (and if) to position the group in the future so that we aid the membership. Broadly I believe our group focus might split into these categories: 1. Head in sand - break/fix - no desire to change - just hang on through retirement or until a customer/client hires them - even if it means a 50% earnings decline. This group is presently serviced well through our ongoing tech support area in Socialcast. 2. Aware of the vast change of ERP but unsure what to do This is the group that spent money to attend MOTF at Summit 3. Already diversified into other areas and 90 Minds is an ancillary benefit (primarily tech support) (they're here for a peek but not much more in terms of participation or collaboration) I am unsure exactly how - or if - the group should/can change to meet these changing needs of our members. Certainly if Sage changes their annual event to be a transactional trade show there will be a .very big opportunity to continue on with the MOTF which is primarily a learning event. This may be something we want to expand upon. Perhaps offering an educational event in advance of Sage Summit Vegas 2014. If there are any other areas which I've missed we should start to focus on them. I do not want to try to ""boil the ocean"" as Mark Chinsky wisely often says. However I think we should think strategically of where we can fill Sage's missed (abandoned) opportunities. We are probably at capacity in terms of what we can do pro-bono for this group (especially Jim and Jeff and Robert who bear the lion's share of day to day work). Start thinking if you're comfortable keeping the group as is or if you want to change as per above. If you want to change as per above I feel it will have to be under a paid model to the people doing the organizational work of 90 Minds. Nothing to do now but be aware that these early signals from Sage are not going away (in my opinion). The channel and products we are collectively a big part of are going to be marginalized. It's not a matter of ""IF"" but when and how quickly.

Good thoughts Wayne. I think we all know that things are changing rapidly. How best to handle/face/conquer those changes is key. I hope/know this group will let us know their thoughts about how they would like to see this group change (or not).

Great post and questions. MOTM and ITA are great networking events for those in camps #2 & 3. Look forward to a lively discussion on Tuesday morning with those at ITA

I would love to have a broad discussion around this at ITA. There are a lot of opportunities for 90 Minds to provide some of these services however we don't want to try to be all things to all people. As an example - in my mind we want more events similar to Minds of The Future. We (90 Minds) probably do not want to try to become a Netsuite partner and sub-license all our members. There's also a valid question -- which I'd love to hear everyone's take on -- whether the newly revamped SLA would be a better venue for members looking to collaborate around diversification. Or equally valid would be just to double down on providing a great area to actively collaborate around tech support issues and share best practices (what we're doing now). Please everyone give this some thought

when and how quickly"" indeed! Assuming Sage is able to reasonably execute on its remote sales-service products, Sage 100-300 will have a fairly long tail, although I don't know how long new customer business will continue in any decent form. But Sage gets smarter about the way it communicates, the more progressive mid-sized firms will leave earlier than they ordinarily would need to. And those are they guys with decent $$ for vendors like us. So, I think our members in group 2 and 3 are interested in making the most of this transition: become the best possible tech choice for Sage 100-300 customers before they move on, and also become the sort of consultant that can realistically help people leaving Sage find and implement the most appropriate ""ERP-CRM system for the next 15 years."" I think the latter part is best approached through being able to talk to a CEO (and not just the Controller) about what they need to do to support their growth initiatives. We (90 Minds) have the technical and process knowledge to do that, but we generally aren't so good at making those conversations happen. Making them happen will require a bigger effort than just calling the right person. I think it is an excellent goal to start with in an SLA-collaboration. I think it's also interesting that Sage is now promoting events like ""The Sage Competitive Edge"". I think they are also aiming higher. So, if 90 Minds became known as a sort of ""Virtual CTO"" for companies of ~200 employees or less it would be good. (I don't like either ""CTO"" or ""CIO"", as the former also includes technology used in the company's products but the latter includes stuff like networking and desktops which we don't really do.) Chuck and I have already staked out this broad direction, but there are lots of details in the way. So, count us in to be enthusiastic helpers in this effort!

We can always point blank ask them on the Sunday ITA Sage meeting and see how quickly they deny any of this....

I won't be there. But asking them about 100-300 and ""Harvest"" would be a fair question. 90 Minds = ""Inquiring minds"".

Jerry's comments, specfically: ""become the sort of consultant that can realistically help people leaving Sage find and implement the most appropriate ""ERP-CRM system for the next 15 years."" "" is exactly where our group wants to be. Part of this was the motivation from attending MOTF. The other has been the realization that we have 30 CPA partners in 4 offices that refer almost zero business related to the software we represent. The reason I suspect is they believe all we want to do is sell their clients software, there is the risk something could go wrong, and they lose their client. In my preliminary conversations with some of my CPA partners about helping their clients determine what they really need, including the analysis and adequacy of their current systems, they seem to be very enthusiastic about this. Not once did I mention selling them a Sage product. I and my consultants have years of business, distribution and manufacturing experience, and we can make a difference for the firm's clients without leading with a software package. We actually do quite a bit of that every year now for clients who would not fit into a Sage product anyway. As Sage continues to do what they do to the channel partners, it moves us closer to that ""technology advisor"" role. I see this group as a source of experience to draw upon for this type of consulting. It can only be a winning formula as I see it, and Sage ends up potentially losing, since we may not select their software for our clients.

So as I take a step back and look at some of the comments in this and other posts I see partners focusing on consulting, CIO activities, technical support, etc... The software companies are (or should be) in the business of selling (or renting) licenses to their intellectual property. There seems to be a major disconnect!

@GaryFeldman - Exactly. But the go go years of the 80's and 90's are long gone. New license sales suck and publishers are no longer innovating and creating rock solid applications. Publishing is now a commodity and their focus is on the perceived ""easy"" money cheese.

@jeffschwenk - with regards to sales, I would respectfully disagree. We went from relatively low sales to being Gold in 2 products relatively easily and more opportunities than our current staff can handle. We see results from partners across the country with sales picking up, especially for the sales oriented VARs

Must be the sunny south..... If your situation is Sage's situation, Why has Sage trimmed their R & D engineering staff and is just milking the herd. From a consulting standpoint, one of my best years ever.

I agree that sales are not a problem. In fact, I don't feel we take advantage of all the opportunities, and Sage knows this. Most of our client base and prospects do not want to deal with a ""salesperson"". This includes the salespeople who call from Sage. They want to have someone who actually knows what they are talking about and has consulted on the products. The frustration is that we in this group are primarily consultants who ""sell' software part time, so it normally is a lower priority to consulting. There probably is a different way to structure how sales are accomplished between Sage and consultants, but I still believe the need must be there before a product is sold, so I don't want Sage to call my clients about some new product. SIA has been an interesting experience, because the real opportunity is the consulting required to assist clients in optimizing their inventory - both before and after installing the software. The opportunity was always there, so we didn't need the software to start the process.

@GaryFeldman my vision of my vision definitely includes license sales/rentals. I don't think that I can loosen my dependence on Sage without explicitly working with products from other vendors. With some exceptions, I just don't think prospects will take you seriously without a vendor relationship with the product you install. This produces some difficult questions about how to actually execute on this. It is part of where I suspect 90 Minds can go in the future, but I don't understand exactly how.

@JerryNorman I've done both - pure consultant and consultant/reseller - and you are correct. Prospects want you to be aligned with a solution, so we will probably always have some relationship. We know they are misguided, but perhaps we have to continue to play the game while educating them.

Not only aligned but most have been trained that the consulting around determining an ERP is complimentary. Such a sad business for us all .

@JerryNorman Perhaps we should look at xTuple again, since they started another e-mail campaign to Sage partners this week.

Perhaps the evaluation process 90 Minds and individual organizations are going through would be a good topic for MOTM. In talking with @ShawnSlavin he definitely took a structured approach.

I could do a session on xTuple at MOTM if there is interest, or see if we could get someone from xTuple there if you want.

@PhilMcIntosh I would be interested in at minimum discussing xTuple with you at MOTM, if not a session.

I do think that xTuple is a good candidate to examine. I'd like to see if we can create a first-pass comparison grid, using Sage 100 functionality as a baseline. I imagine a module-by-module approach, with compare contrast on such things as PO RoG, AP check options, AR Receipt details, Job Templates, SO drop ship, etc. Does anybody have a similar grid already from some other vendor that we could use to ""prime the pump?

I am currently going through the process of examining xTuple compared to Sage 100 and Netsuite. Maybe reporting my findings to the group will motivate me to get it done sooner. If you have questions about what it does / doesn't do, send me your list so I can check it out while evaluating. So far, I am favorably impressed. The biggest hole I've found is that they do not do FIFO costing, only Std, Avg, and job. But in conversations with them I learned that they are aware of it, and a spec has been written, so if someone is willing to fund it, they can add it to the standard product. A big plus is that you can track serial /lot numbers without having to do serial lot costing. The company has been around for over 10 years, and reminds me of State of the Art in the mid 90's. Lots of energy (well, Dave Samuels....)