ICAEW IT in accountancy practices survey report 2011

ICAEW IT in accountancy practices survey report...

Didn't find your answer?

I've just seen on AccountingWeb the IRIS summary of the ICAEW report.

In the accounts production category IRIS have excluded the top performing packages from the numbers quoted and have only compared themselves with poorly performing packages. [self promotional comments and link removed]

Do members think the IRIS summary is misleading?

Philip Hodgson
VT Software

Replies (8)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By taxhound
24th Feb 2012 12:37

I wanted to see the whole survey

But see in typical ICAEW style you have to pay £x00 to view it.

Yes, I think Iris are misleading people - Didn't they added Drumhorr and PTP on to their figures in some instances and gave the total as they own all 3?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By BigBadWolf
24th Feb 2012 13:54

IRIS at it again

The bunch of over charging, under performing liars! Through my dealings with them I know honesty is definitely not one of their virtues (if they have any virtues at all).

They will tell you anything to sell you their overpriced software!

 

On a side note: Don't you guys find it odd that most of the packages that are highly recommended by AWeb members don't even make it the Software Satisfaction Awards (SSA) hosted by AWeb's owners- SIFT?

Thanks (0)
Replying to David Gordon FCCA:
John Stokdyk, AccountingWEB head of insight
By John Stokdyk
27th Feb 2012 12:46

Some points from the editor

@BigBadWolf - I was away Friday and am surprised you haven't been approached about your comment yet. Calling a firm liars and alleging dishonesty certainly violates the spirit of our terms and conditions and is potentially defamatory, though you do back the assertion in your second sentence that your allegation is based on previous dealings with them. No matter how angry you are, please keep your language professional and respectful - and back any negative statements with facts.

As to the SSA Awards, some of the suppliers you have mentioned have taken part before - Moneysoft has one the payroll prize in the past and VT was involved many years ago. All of these vendors are invited to take part every year, but decline - and I'm sure it can't be due to the small fee that is requested to cover administration and analysis. (From what I can see, it's a ridiculously cheap way to get their hands on independent market research figures that quantify their share of the market and the quality of their customer service). So I can't answer your question on behalf of Sift because I know we've tried to get as many vendors to participate as possible.

Perhaps Philip himself could provide an answer to that part of your question.

This comment is not a plea on IRIS's behalf. Generally we do not edit or censor the things advertisers pay to host on AccountingWEB. I haven't see the full report yet, but will look into the issue and raise it internally. If there are issues that may attract regulatory attention, we will act on it and let you know the results of our deliberations.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By vtsoftware
27th Feb 2012 14:10

SSA awards & ICAEW survey

I can confirm that VT are free to enter the SSA awards but choose not to (probably miffed by not winning first time round).

@John. Could AccountingWeb prepare and publish a summary of the ICAEW survey? Inevitably, any summary from a vendor tends to favour that vendor and not even VT is immune from this.

Philip Hodgson
VT Software

 

Thanks (0)
John Stokdyk, AccountingWEB head of insight
By John Stokdyk
27th Feb 2012 15:57

No grounds for complaint

Thanks for coming back, Philip, and for your acknowledgement that "any summary from a vendor tends to favour that vendor..."

Your "objective" analysis is exactly the same thing that IRIS has done. The material and advertising they have put out on AccountingWEB is not misleading, but based on an analysis of a specific subset of data, which puts IRIS in a favourable light. That is what marketing people have done through the ages.

The IRIS advert and landing page talks about a comparison between "main providers" in which it exceeded the performance of Digita, CCH and Sage. This is entirely fair, as those are the companies that supply full suites of tax, accounts preparation and practice management software. I have actually done some very similar analyses with data from the Software Satisfaction Awards.

As a specialist supplier of accounts production software VT is not in the same league as these companies. As I have written elsewhere, with smaller groups of users using more focused tools than full suite suppliers, the niche specialists have always performed better in product satisfaction surveys, because they have a more manageable task.

I will take a look at the ICAEW report when I get the chance, and report on it for the wider community. But if if you would like to promote VT's success in the survey, Philip, could I suggest you do so by advertising your success like IRIS rather than using AccountingWEB's Any Answers as a promotional vehicle?

The nature of your question and promotional links crossed over into what I would consider self promotion, which is prohibited by the site's terms and conditions. Since several people have contributed to the subsequent debate, it would not serve much purpose to remove it. But please note that we will not tolerate any further transgressions.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By vtsoftware
28th Feb 2012 09:09

Whoops!

Sorry, John,  I got carried away. I have removed the self promoting comments from the original post.

Iris and VT have both chosen to summarise the sub sets of data (market share, recommendation level or performance) that most flatter them, but Iris have then omitted the best performing product with the second largest % of practices using it from those sub sets on the grounds that the vendor is not a 'main provider'. That is very different. They have done a similar thing to TaxCalc in the personal and corporation tax sections.

Given that the Iris report is headed up The report our competitors don't want you to see, I personally think a pattern emerges. VT would very much like everyone to see the original ICAEW report, and I would imagine Taxcalc and Moneysoft would say the same.

VT will advertise its own summary in due course.

Philip Hodgson
VT Software

Thanks (2)
John Stokdyk, AccountingWEB head of insight
By John Stokdyk
28th Feb 2012 09:58

Adjustments appreciated

Thanks for taking on board my comments, Philip. We're generally pretty relaxed to ensure that conversations are as free ranging as possible, but are keen to enforce the spirit as well as the letter of our terms and conditions.

Showing a bit of sensitivity on both sides is a good way to maintain fruitful debate, so your adjustments are appreciated.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Osolemio
16th Nov 2012 12:11

VT Final accounts - see their website for results in the survey!

In the survey extract shown  on VT Software's website, VT Final Accounts is the top performer for both acccounts production, and book-keeping. I do think the IRIS extracts are misleading by focussing on the parts of the report that suit their marketing ie recommendations and not making fuller details available.

I am a sole practitioner who used Iris (junior) from 1987 to 1998, when I changed to VTFA.  My annual licence cost was reduced by around 75% I recall. VT does it for me, still, after 14 years.  The book-keeping VT+ package links in well to the Final acs software, and the link to send data to the tax package Drummohr  is simple and works perfectly.

As VTFA is not a suite with practice management features, I do have a seperate client database in Ability Office, since 1987, and time keeping software also. A new practice would need to consider integrated software, as there is an element of duplication in setting up a new client in several softwares - mainly a one of extra 15 mins on signup say.

I would not be selecting Sage at their 78% result against VTFA 89%. Iris at 84% is close but whats the licence cost?  2 or 3 times VTFA.  Enough said - its "you decide".  Happy to take calls re my experiences in using VTFA.

Thanks (0)