|
Roger Keys - Director Tel: +61 3 371 4400 Email: roger@goldfox.co.nz
We first implemented Advance Tax in 1995. I am pleased to say we were the trial site for the first SQL version in 1997.
We have 40 users.
We currently use Xcede Professional Accounting (XPA), Taxation, Practice Management & Fees.
We started with Hartley in 1979 (which became Paxus) until Paxus was sold to Solution 6 in 1993 and APS was formed. I had known Shane Compton since 1982, when she was with Paxus. I became a founding director of APS with her and assisted with the abortive CeeData venture. APS for a period supported our Paxus software. In 1994 GFPKF had a brief flirtation with Sol 6, this was a giant step at best sideways. I had a pretty wide knowledge of Sol 6, CeeData & CA Systems and once APS started to make progress on its windows platform (without baggage) realised this was the path for the future. Fortunately Shane & Pierre LeGrange quickly convinced the rest of my practice likewise.
From the Hartley days onwards both Hartley & Paxus in New Zealand had a very strong user group, as Shane had empathy with the users. The users financed the APS start-up to initially continue support of Paxus software, retain great support staff including Shane and to find a new direction. Quite a few New Zealand users have attended conferences for approximately 25 years. This highlights the strong relationships and loyalty developed over the years.
Yes.
The Central Database especially for Tax, PM & Fees, as it was hotchpotch in its competitors. The pure windows approach meant that new Microsoft literate staff could get up to speed quickly.
Better ability to consolidate XPA & Tax returns. Simplify and streamline its software update process. It needs to retain its roots with responsive support to its loyal clients in spite of becoming more corporate & global.
So far APS has continued to develop and enhance its products in line with its clients’ needs and adhere to its promises fairly well. APS' support for their users and long term loyalty remains a point of difference. However care does need to be taken that this mutually beneficial approach is not eroded as the sometimes more self centred needs of the big four are catered for.
Back to Australian Case Studies |