Story time: people are dense as hell. This one idiot put in his personal SSN to open $XX/m a year POS account. This account currently manages just over a hundred locations, and this fool's TIN has just been raking in millions for a few years all because 'I needed to get us signed up!' And what's better!? They still can't get out of the wet paper bag, because otherwise "we'll someone might start selling candy or something unapproved" > we'll isn't that's what your franchise liaisons and agreements are for?! I'm just beside myself.

I'm so hyped on this because this one 'immovable problem' prevents me from having API access to my locations accounts. Everything just hurts. /rant

And then live forever with two systems running side by side.

In this case it sounds like a midsize business is using some random guy’s number, so the tax authorities are under the impression there’s a guy pulling in millions personally, and a company with no income. Given that individuals and companies get taxed differently in many different jurisdictions concurrently this will be a mess to untangle.

the key thing to understand about ERP systems is that this is their primary purpose. anything else they claim to do is secondary.

Perfect scheme.

Sales is mostly just lying to collect a commission check.

French poet Paul Valery once said: "A poem is never finished, only abandoned".

It is the same for those projects. You just gotta keep paying forever.

Overall the product isn't really needed, and sorta sucks too. If I was an typical developer trying to pitch a startup idea to businesses, it probably would have never got off the ground and nobody would have wasted any time. Maybe eventually the developer would have landed on an idea so good it had REAL PMF, and made that.

But no, instead I sold some garbage and now I'm stuck working on it. There is such a thing as being too good at sales. You don't want sales talking people into bad ideas.

Is there a world where you hire someone to build a more maintainable replacement?

Why not put those sales skills to work and sell the business to someone else?

Deep down I know the product isn't that well liked, and a lot of the renewals are based on my salesmanship. I know I have a chance at fixing the bugs, because I wrote everything, while someone else would be screwed IMO. It just wouldn't be fair to sell it to someone because I know they'd be making a mistake.

When people keep using software, it is because it solves a problem. They might not like the software but begrudgingly use it anyway because it solves that problem. So sure, pat yourself on the back for good salesmanship, but also realize that they keep using it because even if it is covered in warts, it still does the job.

It doesn't really solve a problem. Not really atleast. It's a little better than using 6 Excel sheets via a google drive honestly. The reason it got sold is because in theory it sounds a lot better than Google docs. But it's only a little better. And it has its own host of difficulties (can't modify anything for example.. don't even ask me to add a column or rearrange a table for you).

I know it's not great because if I get a company using it, but don't hand hold onboarding to an extreme level, they never even really get going with it.

When selling it, if I don't really lay it on thick and do a spectacular job, they don't buy.

The reason they don't quit once on it isn't that it solves a great problem or is much better than their previous solution (almost always just Excel sheets), but because switching back to their abandoned system is harder than the $300 a month is worth. So they just keep paying.

Also, I've contacted and pitched wayyy more than 34 companies. Many companies are/were smart enough to pass on it.

I'm not writing for a sob story or to talk up MY salesmanship for whatever reason, but I wanted to share my main takeaway from this project.

When doing lean startup and trying to get your first customers, don't think youve struck gold just because you had a great person schmooze a few people into using your MVP. It can be a false start just based on their persuasion. At this point I'd rather tone down salesmanship a lot and see if I can find a product that really strikes a cord with them instead. Less false starts that way IMO. I'd much rather have gotten 1-2 costumers only, not 34, and realized this isn't worth pursuing.

It sounds like bringing them and you together would basically be a guarantees success.

By the way; I am working as a self-employed developer and my favourite project is a software that has initially been written by a self-taught programmer who both started and ended his career with that software. As far as I heard (he was already out when I joined) he got burned out and said that he never wanted to work with anything software related again. He used PHP and jQuery. I've mainly added new stuff instead of touching the old code, while only only refactoring the old stuff where necessary in very small increments. Most other devs really hate to touch it, but I don't understand why. Of course it would be better to replace it with a new version that has been built on top of a proper framework, but their management is too stubborn to understand that an incremental approach is the better way of handling this. So instead, they try to get a "complete understanding" of the project and try to create a completely new version in a "big bang" approach. This usually takes a few months or even a year until this new replacement project is considered a failure while I keep maintaining and cleaning up the old project. It's been six years for now and even their most "optimistic" people currently say that the old software will be running for at least two more years. Having built up a lot of knowledge over that time, I could easily create a new version in less than half a year (I actually think two months, but I'm tripling my estimation for safety), but that would make their management look bad (long story), so I don't get the green light to do that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

"Two month sound too optimistic" you say? Well it's an inbox, an outbox and one form with a few calculations in between. I have created way more complex software than that in the last years.

Reality would be that a combo of a good developer and a good salesperson would get into a similar situation that I got myself into, but with a better more manageable code base. Not the worst outcome in the world, that's basically most b2b saas technically.

Long ago i made a few html websites for businesses then explained basic html and ftp to the owner. It was perfect except from other webdesign shops hammering my clients.

Depends on the type of sales. A pretty good indicator is how many times a customer makes a purchase from the same salesperson. If it's just one purchase (like ERP consulting) it could be grifty/etc like in this case. If they're buying from the same guy for years, there's often very different types of salespeople. I used to think all salespeople fit the sketchy used car salesman type, but after working with great salespeople I know better. This is a big blind spot for us techical/engineering types.

Estimation is hard but it seems it's far too easy for the vendor to blatantly lie with all the risk on the customer.

the #1 cause of failure is summed up greatly by Isaiah Bollinger, paraphrasing "most bad implementations are because people are trying to buck the system they bought, rather than work with it, understand how your ERP, eCommerce or other system does a workflow and match it. There's billions of dollars going in and out of Shopify (or x system) daily, and you are not that special. You will spend 10x as much trying to NOT use the system rather than trying to use it".

Overcoming process inertia is profoundly expensive and often demoralizing to teams. The project budget for a new system is often pitched as vendor price plus some internal oversight, but this fails to represent the cost of the project exactly because adapting the workflow of a whole division or organization inevitavly costs some multiple of that budget while vendors, consultants, and internal spearheaders all pretend it's negligible.

You're right, ultimately, that failure to adapt is the final damning issue in many of these projects but the root cause of the failure is often that nobody sincerely quantified just how costly and disruptive it will be.

What makes the clients we work with great and unique and what I love is the products they make or the problems they solve for customers, but they're not tech companies or banks. The ones who succeed are the ones who focus on thier core value and core skills and not random accounting process X Y or Z.

Besides the ERP consulting bit we sell niche solutions in our product space. Mostly comms(EDI, ecommerce,etc) or payroll/bookkeeping addons.

E.g. many professionals jump from technology to technology, rather than mastering how get stuff done with one so they end up being mediocre their whole career.

"We want the new system to work exactly like our old one"

It's probably not worth the money...

I had one guy want me to recreate Microsoft word, worts and all, because his current Word wasn't doing it for him

If you do things the "native" way in Azure or AWS, you'll be fine, just like millions of other customers.

If you try and make the cloud work like your old data centre platform, then you'll have a bad time.

I just watched a customer spend $2M to deploy software routers to replace the "bad" cloud-native routers. Now everything is more difficult, slower, and just all-round bad. But they "had" to do it. (Narrator: No, they didn't.)

In your example, the customer may have had software that depended on the routers having some functionality that the cloud native routers didn't. Sure if they had designed for that cloud from the beginning it wouldn't be a big deal. But now, that $2M might be less than the cost of changing all their other systems to work around the limitations of the cloud native router. I've seen situations play out like that a few times.

In this particular case they were sold a product that serves one purpose: multi-cloud solutions across international boundaries where no single telco can connect all of the data centre locations.

Their handful of locations are all in one city and well-connected by multiple telcos because... they're a state government, not a multi-national corporation. They're blocked by the constitution from expanding inter-state, let alone internationally. That would be a literal act of war.

That didn't stop the vendor's sales team showing slides with titles like: "What if you need to expand into the Chinese market?".

I never worked in those ERP companies, but a few times I've been on the receiving end, working at companies undergoing a large migration.

It is very often stuff that doesn't really matter, is highly inefficient, and requires small changes everywhere in the system. Death by thousand papercuts.

There is no incentive from both sides to change: the company wants to keep modifying to get $$$, employees don't want to change how they work, the person paying the bills is not getting the full picture.

If there's anything that is actually really "unique" (in a good way), then you spend money. Often this means not customizing the ERP, but actually writing new software.

But the RFP said I had to do it, and the customer insisted that I follow the letter of the RFP, rather than hit the high value parts of the project.

The two problems with this are that the cost of automation far exceeded the possible future cost of the manual process, and working on this automation took oxygen away from the stuff that would help people.

Needless to say, it was a disaster.

This is insane cope. We make technology to assist end users perform the tasks they do. To say "well you're doing the task wrong, the tool is made so you do task X way instead" is to put the cart in front of the horse.

Those big ERPs are not really blank canvases, but when you need those micro-customizations in the wrong place, they can become one.

End users involved in the integration don't really want to learn new processes or even do things slightly different, as they know that changing process often involves burning a lot of political capital and they often lack awareness to know that "just using the ERP the way it's intended" is cheaper. And consultants are experts in finding a chance to perform those micro changes. It's a perfect marriage.

Its why picking the right ERP is very iimportat

I have yet to meet a single company which works like ERP are designed to work. This is their edge over competition, their reason for existence on brutal market. And ERP wipe that out, with the most expensive wiper you can imagine, while selling various bullshit left and right, and constantly lying to given company how everything is fine and under control.

Truly, a way to kill a company. The fact that some survived it all to tell a story just shows how resilient whole such org is to such a massive stressor that ERP migration always is.

They sell first and foremostly a lie - that you can have cover-it-all system just like competition, to match your unique way of working, without suffering tremendously, fit like a glove out-of-box (when reality is exactly opposite). It just never works, more like hammering a concrete glove on your progressively more disfigured hand, while being told how rosy your future will be.

If you're not part of the solution, be part of the problem.

I guess success and failure are both group efforts.

128k/ year, while RT still runs in a VM for all the other ticketing queues.

Lots of powerpoints.

Trying to build a total second system is nearly impossible if it's big and old.

I read this and immediately became sick to my stomach. I despise working in corporate america.

America might lead the way, but corporate anything, anywhere is pretty terrible.

I feel this on a deep level since the ERP system at our company is in the middle of moving to one of these big vendors and so much is simply not working out, extending timelines and development cycles. Cost only goes up and ROI is pushed out beyond the horizon.

PLM is equally bad and a horror show of legacy vendors trying to sell their solutions with the promise of customizability. Again the small, more modern players in the PLM space are constantly ignored for the big legacy ones and it turns out those legacy platforms even in their latest iterations are inflexible at best or downright hellish at worst. The reason behind all of this? Service contracts and vendor lock-in are the main drivers of value for these vendors, rather than quality (and modern) engineering.

I have a current client that is a mirror of this exactly. They had one new executive go to a sales demo, and the sales guy told him it would be "live" in a few months, and he believed it. It was so laughable and downright embarrassing for the client. In this case, I know it is at least a 3-year project if you have competent team members and vendors. It also depends on how you define "success" and how many business processes you are willing to break. However, these can stretch into 5 year projects when you are working with mission critical systems running accounting and payroll. In those cases, you cannot move fast and break things.

Most organizations don't have competent teams, and the vendors are often made up of low-skilled offshore workers, which makes nuanced, complex projects very complicated. The sales side will promise the world then the implementation team is low skilled and underdelivers.

I have seen this with several other clients, replacing pieces of PeopleSoft modules with different applications. Sometimes they come back and sometimes they just suffer through it and then find a third option after the new system fails to deliver.

Most ERP systems are just CRUD systems. So, you end up with a working CRUD system being replaced by a new CRUD system. The old system had its strengths and weaknesses. The new system will solve some problems and break others.

You spend 3-5 years replacing a system only to end up in the same place you were before: A CRUD system. This is maddening unless you are the new vendor and getting enriched.