I've actually talked to both sides of this situation now that the company who was implemented actually named the VAR who did the implementation.

I again state, I have no actual hands on experience with the details.

The point being, there is DEFINITELY another side to this story. The company mentioned has a good regional reputation. I'm not saying they have no fault as we all make mistakes and are only as good as our people on the project.

As pointed out above, however, what seems very unfair is the author didn't seem to solicit any comment from the vendor or publisher on the situation. He played judge and jury in this and due to the internet world we live in, I'm sure this has cost alot of goodwill to both the VAR and to Sage.

The Standish Group Chaos report states 50% of all IT projects are way over budget and time with less functionality than expected. 25% of all projects are failed and ripped out and only 25% are successful. The reason for the 75% failure rate have as much (if not more) to do with the client than the actual software or the implementor.

Don't judge Sage or Net@Work by this article, but use it as a wake up call in general to do as Wayne stated above, a conference room pilot and make sure you aren't buying based on low estimates assuming they are a fixed price. There are many happy customers of both the VAR and the Sage that don't get articles written about them. The press likes "doom and gloom." I guess happy stories don't sell magazines.

You can probably find horror stories like this for virtually every product sold. Just Google Netsuite or the darling of wall street, Salesforce.com for example.