Not the brand. The right fit.

There is a purchasing habit that feels safe and quietly costs mid-market firms a fortune: buying the biggest brand. The logic seems sound. A big name means a proven product, and nobody gets criticised for choosing it. Then twelve months later the firm is using 30% of what it pays for, the team has built workarounds because the system does not match how they actually work, and the risk the purchase was meant to remove is still there, now with a licence fee attached.

I have seen this pattern for twenty years, and the cause is always the same. The system was chosen on reputation, not on fit. Nobody did the due diligence on whether it matched the firm's people, its processes and its existing technology, because the brand felt like it made that homework unnecessary. It never does.

Early in my career I learned the counter-lesson that still shapes my work. Open-source systems, chosen carefully, could be as resilient as the biggest commercial names, and sometimes more resilient, at a fraction of the cost. The point was never that open source is always right. The point is that fit beats brand, every time. Sometimes the best fit is a commercial system. Sometimes it is a subscription tool. Sometimes it is open source. The badge on the box tells you nothing about which.

Fit is measurable. Does the system match how your people actually work, or will they fight it? Does it carry your real process end to end, or leave manual gaps at the joins? Does it integrate with the structure you already run? Does the ROI hold when you price the change honestly, training and transition included?

An independent, brand-agnostic read answers those questions before money moves. That is the whole discipline: due diligence first, fit over fashion, and a structure your firm will actually use at full value.

← All insights