| a. |
When did your firm implement its APS Advance
Practice Management system |
July 1999 |
| b. |
Which edition did your firm sign up for – a)
Professional or b) Enterprise |
Professional Edition. |
| c. |
How many users do you have? |
We have 35 users |
| d. |
Which APS products have you taken out licences to use?
(PM, Tax etc…) |
Advance Practice Management, Tax, and PA (Professional
Accounting). |
| e. |
Who was you previous supplier and how long were you
using that supplier’s software for? |
Solution 6 – we had used them for 10 to 12 years |
| f. |
From start to finish, how long did the meeting, testing
and decision-making process take that saw you move over
to APS? |
It all took 3 months in total – we went to Sydney
and compared APS to Sol6 to CA Systems, and to Cee Data
in the course of a number of half day sessions. |
| g. |
Was your decision to move over to APS made on gut-feel,
or was it more scientific than that? Please explain how
you went about making your decision…. (e.g. team
approach: IT manager, IT Partner, Work Group etc…) |
Our decision was more scientific. The Windows platform
and the architecture of the product were key elements
affecting our decision. |
| h. |
Now that you have been using APS products for 3 years,
has the product and service met your expectations? If
so, please tell me about it……. |
Yes. The support is as good as you will get in any
software application and the product works well for us. |
| i. |
APS prides itself on its ability to listen to its customers
regarding their business needs and business aims and
its commitment to then work closely with customers to
meet and achieve them. Tell us about the APS approach
from your perspective… |
This is true. The team listens and is interested in
what we have to say – they don’t always agree
with my ideas but at least they always tell me why! |
| a. |
Functionality
Testing |
|
| i. |
Looking at APS from a product perspective,
what were the most important factors from a functionality
point-of-view that were seen as critical to your business – the
things that APS had to have if it was to be considered
as a your practice management and tax preparation software
provider? |
3 factors were most important for us – firstly,
improved billing, secondly, open architecture; and, thirdly,
financial statement presentation. These were the three
initial key drivers that saw us choose APS.
|
| ii. |
Did you feel that APS was ahead of its competitors
in terms of its functionality and how did you verify
the fact? (e.g. pilot / product testing methodology) |
We did feel this was the case. I went to Sydney and
spent half a day in each supplier’s offices, having
a full run through of all functionality that CA systems,
Sol6 and Cee Data had to offer. APS came out on top. |
| iii. |
How long did you pilot and test the Advance product
set for functionality – and how many people were
involved? Was the APS team accommodating in this process
or did your APS contacts press you to make an early decision? |
We did not run a pilot – the functionality comparisons
I made when in Sydney were enough to convince me to choose
APS. In fact I don’t think APS was offering a full ‘pilot’ back
in 1999. |
| iv. |
Did testing the Advance product set provide any positive
surprises in terms of embedded functionality that you
did not know about….. functionality that could
help your business in a way that a PM system had not
previously? |
Not really. My testing was reasonably exhaustive – I
knew what I was going to get.
Having said that, I do believe that some improvements
can be made. For example, PA’s modification
of templates is too technical for many users – in
fact it’s probably the hardest report writer
I have come across. It’s complicated but the
pay-off is that it gives us extra functionality.
Also, I have always said and I still maintain that
PM reporting is Advance’s weakest point. APS
has addressed this by saying ‘buy our PIQ product’ – but
this is a financial barrier for a smaller firm user.
These are not criticisms, more observations for APS
to consider. I get a number of calls from other firms
who are considering buying APS – and I always
mention these points. But at the same time I always
underline the value of the product and the fact that
our firm is a happy customer.
|
| b. |
Ease-of-use
testing |
|
i.
|
From a functionality point of view you have told us
why you moved to APS. Ease-of-use is also important:
how did you make sure that Advance is easy-to-use from
a practitioners’ perspective? |
Ease-of-use is fine but Fees are a little fickle in
billing – everything else is very user-friendly.
Interim Fees need an overhaul – some of the processes
are a little problematic. Again, these are not criticisms – just
things that could be worked on.
|
ii.
|
Was testing ‘ease-of-use’ an important
part of your testing process? If so, how did you test
the product set for ease of use? |
We had no problems when testing the product – and
we have found that our new accountants find it easy to
pick up. |
| c. |
Future Development |
|
| |
What would you like to see APS add to its product set
in its next releases of Advance that will assist your
business? What does it need to do to stay ahead of its
competitors? |
One issue I have discussed with Ross Wheatland – I would like to see a great
deal more interaction between the Tax product and forms
that we supply to our clients (like the NZ Workpapers
product, an XML file for clients to fill in and email
back to you) – this is more relevant to tax than
business services. One size does not fit all for business
services in the same way. If a Workpapers style product
could be built to interface into PA we would save a huge
amount of time as we could extract data direct from a
client without it having to be typed again into PA. Clients
would respond positively to this also I think as it would
reduce our time requirement.
As far as the Tax product is concerned, (the bain of our lives is the paperwork
we receive from the tax office and finding an effective way of dealing
with it) as yet APS has not yet come up with a practical solution to help
deal with this e.g. integration of information within the tax system e.g.
PAYG instalments |
| Were the following factors important to
you in determining if APS was the right provider for
your firm to go with:- |
| a. |
The fact that APS is a profitable business?
APS prides itself on the fact that it has posted a profit
every year since inception in 1991 |
It is an important principle – but
when we signed up in 1999, this point was not really
being underlined. |
| b. |
The fact that the Advance product set traces its lineage
and development path directly to its first release in
1994 ….. there has been no deviation from the product
roadmap – merely incremental annual upgrades to
the product. This has meant that customers have not had
to waste time and money implementing new systems on an
intermittent basis |
Yes, it’s nice but not particularly critical – more
critical to me is what the product does here and now.
It does what we want it to do which is important..
|
| c. |
What other corporate stability factors would you recommend
that firms should consider when choosing a Practice Management
system supplier? |
The ‘people’ thing – the fact that
many APS people have been with the company since the
start makes a real difference; and here I mean the development
team as well as the support team. |
