For years, leaders were told to choose one platform, move the business onto it, and standardise around one vendor. It sounds clean. In practice, it often creates heavy systems, slower change, and workflows that serve the platform more than the people using it.
The problem is simple: ERP can be strong at control, records and compliance. It is rarely the best tool for every team, every process and every decision.
ERP was sold as the answer to fragmentation. One source of truth. One workflow engine. One core platform for finance, operations, supply chain, procurement and people data. The idea sounds strong. The day-to-day reality is often frustrating.
ERP becomes everyone's real problem when every team depends on it, but few teams are fully supported by it. Finance may want control. Sales may want speed. Operations may want flexibility. Service teams may want a cleaner customer view. One system rarely handles all of that well.
ERP is good at structure. It is usually weaker when the business needs speed, adaptability and better user experience.
That is where the drag starts. Teams build workarounds. Manual entry grows. Reporting slows down. Change requests stack up. Small fixes become long projects. The issue is not just technical. It affects time, cost and service quality.
The all-in-one model assumes a single vendor can support every business function at the right depth. That rarely holds up. Different teams have different needs, and those needs change at different speeds.
This is the trade-off at the heart of most ERP evaluations — something we work through concretely in NetSuite alternatives for Australian technology companies.
Point solutions used to get dismissed as fragmented and hard to connect. That was more valid when integration meant heavy custom work and brittle connectors. That is not the full picture now.
Many point solutions are mature, API-ready and built for clear use cases. They often deliver better workflows, better user adoption and faster product improvement than large platforms trying to cover too much. Where they tend to win:
The main case against point solutions used to be integration complexity. That is still something to manage, but the tools are far better now. iPaaS platforms, workflow automation, event-based architecture and standard APIs have changed what good integration looks like.
Integration should be treated as a core capability. When data flows, triggers and monitoring are managed well, businesses get flexibility without giving up control. Campfire's platform and integration layer is built on this assumption — prebuilt connectors for the systems finance already runs on, plus an API surface for everything else.
The better model is not random software buying. It is a clear structure. The general ledger keeps its place as the system of record. Specialist tools handle execution where they are stronger. Integrations connect the flow between them.
It is time to move past the idea that one platform should do everything. The finance system still matters, but it needs a smaller, sharper job.
Point solutions are not a sign of weak architecture. When chosen well and linked through automated integrations, they give teams better tools and reduce the drag that comes from forcing every workflow into one system.
The right question is not which single platform should own the business. It is which mix of systems gives each team the best way to work, while keeping data, accountability and control in place. If you are working through that decision for an ANZ finance stack, we are happy to talk it through.