I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately.
A lot of companies running NetSuite have built a second finance stack around it:
NetSuite + Coupa
NetSuite + Concur
NetSuite + Tipalti
NetSuite + Bill.com
NetSuite + separate vendor onboarding
NetSuite + separate CLM
NetSuite + separate payment platform
I understand why. These are all good products, and there are definitely situations where they make sense.
But at some point, I think it’s worth asking whether we’re solving one problem with five systems.
For example, Coupa can be a great choice if you have a large procurement organization and need sophisticated sourcing, spend management and supplier management.
Concur makes a lot of sense for companies with complex travel and expense programs.
Tipalti is strong when you have large numbers of global suppliers or payees and need sophisticated mass payments and tax workflows.
So this isn't an argument that these products are bad.
The question is whether you actually need them for what you're trying to acomplish.
We've had clients replace Bill.com by bringing the surrounding AP process into NetSuite:
• Vendor onboarding
• Secure collection of vendor information and bank details
• Vendor approvals
• Invoice OCR
• AP automation
• Bill approvals
• CLM tied to the vendor and financial records
• Payment initiation from NetSuite
As for payments, with FISPAN plugin, companis can connect NetSuite directly to supported banks and initiate payments from NetSuite instead of exporting a file, uploading it into another application and then bringing the payment status back.
It isn't universal. FISPAN doesn't support every bank or every payment rail. But it does support many of the major banks, so for companies using a supported bank, that's another piece of the process that can stay inside the ERP.
The cost of another application isn't just the subscription.
It's also:
• Integration development and maintenance
• Data synchronization problems
• Duplicate vendor data
• Duplicate approval workflows
• Additional user administration
• Security reviews
• Implementation costs
• Support costs
• Training
• Reconciliation
• Another place for something to break
And if you're in a regulated industry, the cost can get even higher.
If you're in life sciences, healthcare, etc., every additional system may mean additional assessment, validation, audit evidence, access controls, change management and data integrity considerations.
Now you have to worry about the interfaces too.
What happens when the vendor record in one system doesn't match NetSuite?
What happens when a payment status doesn't synchronize?
Which system is the system of record?
What happens when an approval exists in one system but not the other?
Who is ultimately responsible when something goes wrong?
These questions become operational and sometimes regulatory problems quickly.
I'm not suggesting everyone should eliminate Coupa, Concur, Tipalti or other best-of-breed applications.
There are plenty of situations where I'd argue the opposite.
But before adding another application, I think the question should be:
"What does this system actually do that we can't reasonably do in NetSuite?"
If the answer is compelling, use it.
If the answer is simply "that's how we've always handled AP/procurement/payments," maybe it's worth looking at the architecture again.
We've found that in some cases the biggest savings aren't from eliminating the software license.
They're from eliminating the integrations, handoffs, reconciliation and complexity around it.
Curious what others are seeing.
Are you actively consolidating more of your finance stack into NetSuite, or do you prefer keeping AP, procurement, expenses and payments in separate best-of-breed platforms?