Talk about a partnership
For software vendors with partner networks

Every partner on Votis delivers the way your best one does.

Your best consultant sets out how your finance system should be implemented, once. Every partner who comes on to Votis starts from that specification, and what lands is the same whoever won the deal.

Your product is judged by your worst partner’s implementation. The support ticket comes to you. The renewal conversation is yours, and so is the reference call.

Training and certification cannot fix it. What a good implementation knows lives in people, and people move. A certificate records that someone sat the course; it does not travel into the project.

So write it down once. Your best consultant sets out what a good implementation of your finance system has to settle, in what order, and why.

Every partner who comes on to Votis runs discovery, scoping and configuration from that, and we set the specification up in their platform ourselves. What lands is the same whoever is on the project.

And every decision on every project carries who settled it and why, so the reasoning behind an implementation is written down rather than remembered.

If your programme runs on certification, this makes a certificate worth more, not less: your certified senior sets the specification out once, and everybody else executes what they set out. For the first time what your best certified consultant knows reaches the projects they are not staffed on.

If you are a partner, this page is not for you. A partner is a services firm, and that page is yours. Services firms

What you get back.

Every partner on Votis delivers the way your best one does.

The specification is your best consultant’s judgement, written down. We set it up in each partner’s own platform when they come on, and their junior runs from it: the chart of accounts, the entities and the close land the way you would have landed them.

A new partner is productive on their first implementation, not their fifth.

The order, the questions and the reasons are already set out. The agent does the asking; the partner’s consultant manages it, reads the reasoning and signs off, from day one.

Work your partners turn down today.

Every network has whitespace: the multi-entity job nobody is comfortable with, the customer too small to carry a senior, the sector with no one in it. When the judgement is in the specification a partner can take the implementation they would have declined, and the long tail stops being deals your channel hands back.

The reasoning behind an implementation is written down, not remembered.

Every decision on every project carries who settled it and why, and a proposal the agent wrote that nobody has confirmed is shown as exactly that. Bringing that together into one view across a network is not built yet; it is what we would build with the vendor who goes first.

Escalations that were really implementation mistakes stop arriving as product bugs.

When every partner configures the system the same way, the ticket that was really a wrong setting stops reaching your support queue dressed as a defect.

Every partner on Votis starts from the same specification.

Your best consultant sets out what a good implementation of your finance system has to settle, and why, once. When a partner comes on to Votis we set that specification up in their platform ourselves, so the ones running on it all start from the same place. What lands differs only where the customer’s own answers do, and the reason your consultant wrote for the order travels into every one of them.

Finance system · one specification, three partners
Set out once by your consultant
Harbourline Group
Sandsend Holdings
Fellgate Marine
Partner
Aldermere Partners
Carrow & Hale
Wrenfield Advisory
Companies
9 under one holding company
3
12, two dormant
Cost centres
Shared across the group
Per company
Shared across the group
Approval limits
Per company: Scotland approves separately
One limit for the group
Per company
Fixed assets
Declined: none held
In scope
In scope
Why cost centres wait
Cost centres belong to a legal entity, so the companies are settled first.
The same sentence.
The same sentence.
Your consultant set out what a finance implementation has to settle, in what order, and why. Aldermere Partners came on to Votis with it already set up, and are running it at Harbourline.
Carrow & Hale run from the same specification at Sandsend. Cost centres are per company because that is Sandsend’s answer, not the partner’s habit.
Wrenfield Advisory at Fellgate. Where the answers match, the configuration matches, byte for byte, whichever partner delivered it.
Three partners, three customers, three rows that differ, and every difference is the customer’s own answer. Your reason for the order says the same thing at all three.

What we would build with you.

Every decision on every project already carries who settled it, the customer, the consultant or the agent, and why it holds: because it was discussed, because it came in with the workbook, because something else depends on it, or because the system requires it. A decision the agent wrote and nobody has confirmed is shown as proposed, and it does not count as agreed. One view of all of that across a network, so you read it without asking anybody, is not built. This is what it would look like, and it is the first thing we would build with the vendor who goes first.

Across the network · every decision, who settled it, and why
1 partner · 2 decisions
Project
Unit
Decision
Settled by
Because
Harbourline Group · Aldermere Partners
Approval limits
Proposed
Agent
each limit belongs to a cost centre · waiting for a person to confirm
Harbourline Group · Aldermere Partners
Fixed assets
Declined
Customer
discussed on the call: the group holds none
Sandsend Holdings · Carrow & Hale
Cost centres
In scope
Customer
came in with the workbook
Sandsend Holdings · Carrow & Hale
Bank accounts
In scope
Consultant
required for a finance system
Fellgate Marine · Wrenfield Advisory
Chart of accounts
In scope
Consultant
required for a finance system
Fellgate Marine · Wrenfield Advisory
Bank feeds
Proposed
Agent
depends on bank accounts · waiting for a person to confirm
Aldermere Partners’ project at Harbourline: two decisions, each with who settled it and why. One is the agent’s proposal, and it says so.
Carrow & Hale at Sandsend, the same specification. Cost centres came in with the workbook; the consultant added bank accounts because the system requires them.
Wrenfield Advisory at Fellgate. Three partners’ reasoning on one screen is the view we would build; today every project keeps its own record.
Two decisions were written by the agent and not yet confirmed by a person. They are shown as proposed, and they do not count as agreed until someone says so.
Aldermere’s consultant has confirmed theirs; Wrenfield’s is still waiting. Reading that across a network, without asking anybody, is what the first vendor would help us build.

What we are asking for.

Your best implementation consultant for a few days, and an introduction to a handful of your partners.

It costs you nothing. No fee, no licence, no exclusivity, and no commitment from any of your partners.

You get the reference specification for your system, written with your own consultant and carrying your name. Every partner who comes on to Votis starts from it, and implements your product the way you would implement it yourself.

How a network is set up, and who holds what, is settled on the call.

If you are the partner.

You can sell this vendor’s finance system without hiring a specialist ahead of the first deal, because the specification already holds what a good implementation has to settle and the agent does the asking.

On a fixed price you keep your margin, because every decision carries who made it and why, and scope nobody wrote down stops coming out of it.

The page for services firms

See it on your network.

A 20-minute call. Bring the implementation workbook your partners are meant to follow, and we’ll show you what every one of them would run from.

Talk about a partnership