In a follow-up to the previous article where we discussed Bob the CEO’s annual budgeting process, we’ve analyzed the responses we received from various companies regarding their products and their capabilities to handle such complex processes. These responses can be categorized into three main groups.
Group 1: “Off-the-Shelf” Solutions with Limited Customization
The first group consists of companies that offer products which are largely “off-the-shelf” and cannot be customized to the extent Bob and his team require. These companies assert that their product is designed to meet the needs of businesses that can fit themselves into the provided framework. Essentially, their message is that their product serves businesses with less complex requirements and, therefore, cannot support the extensive customizations requested. They maintain that the core purpose of their product is affordability and ease of use, but for more sophisticated needs, such customization is simply not feasible.
Group 2: Customizable Products with High Development Costs
The second group takes a more flexible stance. They acknowledge that their products can be customized to meet specific client requirements, but they emphasize that these customizations come with significant costs. The process would require developer time and could extend over several months, leading to a high financial investment. While they claim their solution can accommodate virtually any need, they make it clear that such customization requires substantial resources and is a costly venture.
Group 3: Hybrid Solutions with Excel Integration
The third group suggests a hybrid approach, offering solutions that integrate with Excel. They argue that even if their product doesn’t fully meet every specific requirement, businesses can work around these limitations by exporting data to Excel. They advocate for creating workarounds or Excel models to manipulate the exported data and feed it back into their system. This approach would allow clients to perform the necessary tasks, using Excel as a powerful tool to bridge the gap. While they acknowledge the need for compromise, they suggest that integrating Excel into the solution offers a degree of flexibility that could work for many clients.
Companies that Did Not Respond
There were also companies that chose not to respond to our inquiry. These organizations continue to promote the superiority of their products over Excel, despite not engaging in any meaningful discussions or providing demonstrations. When asked to demonstrate why their solutions were more effective for annual budgeting, these companies declined. This silence raises questions about their confidence in their claims.
Additionally, we reached out to promotional arms associated with these companies, who had previously recommended their products. However, they also failed to respond, continuing to assert that Excel was not a viable option for annual budgeting. This persistent claim stands in contrast to the tangible evidence that Bob and his team have demonstrated—using Excel within a client’s hub-and-spoke architecture for the budgeting process.
Conclusion
The responses we’ve received from these companies reveal a broad spectrum of opinions, from inflexible off-the-shelf solutions to highly customizable but expensive systems, to hybrid models that leverage Excel. However, the companies that failed to engage with us, while continuing to tout the superiority of their products over Excel, only serve to highlight the need for greater transparency and dialogue. Given the real-world success of Bob’s team using Excel for budgeting in a client’s system, it remains a valid question as to why some vendors continue to dismiss it as a practical solution.
Ultimately, the choice between these approaches depends on the unique needs of each business. However, for many, Excel continues to prove its value, offering flexibility and scalability at a fraction of the cost of some of the more specialized solutions on the market.
Add comment