ERP Myths #04
“The Cheapest Business Central Proposal Is the Best One.”
One of the most common mistakes in ERP purchasing is comparing proposals based only on the total project price.
One proposal is $50,000.
Another is $75,000.
Another is $100,000.
At first glance, the decision seems simple:
“Let’s choose the cheapest one.”
But in ERP projects, price and cost are not the same thing.
In fact, the cheapest project can sometimes become the most expensive decision for the business.
Because the real cost of a Business Central project is not limited to the number on the proposal.
A significant part of the cost becomes visible after the system goes live.
Why comparing ERP proposals by price alone can be misleading
A Business Central proposal can include:
- analysis,
- consulting,
- data migration,
- integrations,
- development,
- user training,
- testing,
- go-live,
- project management,
- post-go-live support.
Another proposal may include only some of these elements.
Two partners may therefore appear to be offering the same solution while actually proposing two very different project scopes.
The right question is not:
“Which one is cheaper?”
It is:
“Which partner can deliver the required scope, quality and sustainability at the right overall cost?”
Why can a low proposal become expensive later?
Some proposals may appear cheaper because certain activities are excluded from the initial scope.
For example:
“This integration will be priced separately.”
“This customization is outside the project scope.”
“Additional user training is charged separately.”
“Post-go-live support is not included.”
There is nothing inherently wrong with defining project scope this way.
Every ERP implementation is different.
The problem occurs when these potential costs are not transparent from the beginning.
Once the project starts, every additional requirement can increase the budget.
The proposal that looked cheapest at the beginning can therefore become significantly more expensive by the end of the project.
Do not confuse licensing cost with project cost
A Business Central investment is not simply a software licensing investment.
Licensing is only one component.
Depending on the business requirements, consulting, implementation, integration, data migration, development, training and support may all contribute to the overall cost.
Business Central can also be extended through applications and extensions, including solutions available through AppSource. Microsoft explicitly documents Business Central’s extensibility through apps and extensions.
Therefore, evaluating an ERP investment only by asking:
“How much is the license?”
or:
“How much is the implementation?”
is not enough.
The cheapest development is not necessarily the best development
Development costs also need to be evaluated carefully.
One partner may solve almost every requirement through custom development.
Another may first evaluate Business Central’s standard functionality.
Then they may look for an appropriate AppSource solution.
Only after that may they recommend custom development where it is genuinely required.
The second approach does not necessarily have the lowest initial cost.
But it may produce a more sustainable architecture over time.
Microsoft’s Business Central documentation describes extensions and apps as mechanisms for extending the platform, including different extension scopes and application models.
The key question is therefore not:
“How much development was done?”
It is:
“Why was this development necessary, and what business value does it create?”
Technical debt is an invisible cost
Some ERP costs do not appear on the original proposal.
Technical debt is one of them.
A fast and inexpensive custom solution may look attractive today.
But over time:
- maintenance may become more difficult,
- upgrades may become more complex,
- integrations may become harder to maintain,
- dependencies between customizations may increase,
- new requirements may become more expensive to implement.
Business Central is an evolving platform, so the sustainability of the solution architecture matters.
Microsoft’s documentation describes Business Central solutions in terms of extensions and explains how Microsoft and third-party extensions are managed across upgrades.
A development decision made today should therefore also be evaluated against its future maintenance and upgrade implications.
“We can go live faster” is not automatically an advantage
Another attractive proposal statement is:
“We can implement Business Central in three months.”
But how?
With what scope?
Which processes are being standardized?
Which customizations are being developed?
How will data be migrated?
How will integrations be tested?
How much training will users receive?
What happens after go-live?
Speed matters.
But in ERP, there is a major difference between fast delivery and rushed delivery.
Taking a poorly analyzed system live in three months is not success.
Delivering a properly designed system in a controlled and sustainable way is.
Where does the cheapest proposal become expensive?
A simple way to think about it is:
**Initial investment
- additional development
- additional consulting
- integration costs
- data remediation
- user adoption costs
- maintenance and support
- technical debt
- future upgrade costs
= Real ERP cost**
This is why ERP purchasing should also be evaluated through a TCO — Total Cost of Ownership perspective.
A successful ERP project is not “cheap”; it is predictable
A business does not only need a low ERP price.
It needs:
predictable costs, clear scope, measurable outcomes, sound architecture and a sustainable system.
The initial investment may be somewhat higher. But the scope is clear. The assumptions are documented. Potential additional costs are understood. The solution is designed for long-term sustainability. In that situation, a higher initial investment can actually result in a lower total cost.
How should you compare Business Central proposals?
Instead of comparing only the final numbers, evaluate partners across these areas:
Project scope: What exactly is included?
Analysis: How deeply will the existing business processes be assessed?
Migration: Which data will be migrated?
Integration: Are existing system integrations included?
Development: Which customizations are genuinely necessary?
AppSource: Have existing applications been evaluated?
Training: How will user adoption be handled?
Testing: How will acceptance testing be performed?
Go-live: What is the go-live strategy?
Support: What happens after go-live?
Future: How will the solution be maintained over the next several years?
Without answering these questions, comparing only the proposal price is like buying a car based solely on its sticker price.
The MyronSoft approach
At MyronSoft, our objective is not to offer the cheapest Business Central project.
Our objective is:
to eliminate unnecessary costs while directing investment toward the areas that genuinely create value.
That requires understanding the business processes first.
Then evaluating Business Central’s standard capabilities.
Assessing relevant AppSource solutions where appropriate.
Developing only where there is a genuine requirement.
Designing integrations properly.
Migrating data correctly.
And thinking beyond the go-live date.
Because a good ERP partner should not simply say:
“We offer you the lowest price.”
They should be able to say:
“We understand where this investment creates value and where unnecessary cost can be avoided.”
Conclusion
The cheapest Business Central proposal is not necessarily the best proposal.
The best proposal is the one that:
understands the business,
defines the scope clearly,
avoids unnecessary customization,
makes the right investments,
accounts for future maintenance and development,
and creates measurable business value.
In ERP, the important question is not simply how little you pay at the beginning.
It is what you will continue paying for over the years.
Perhaps the better question during an ERP purchasing process is not:
“How much does this project cost?”
but:
“What will this investment really cost us over time?”