FIXED FEE · 2–3 WEEKS · ZERO DISRUPTION · NDA STANDARD
The Software Cost & Exit Audit.
A fixed-fee measurement of what your current software really costs you, which parts of it you actually use, and what leaving would cost. No migration is proposed until the numbers exist.
Why measure before moving
Almost every argument about replacing a business platform is conducted without numbers. One side knows the licence cost and assumes the usage; the other knows the usage and assumes the migration risk. Both are guessing, and the guess that wins is usually the one made by whoever is more senior in the room.
The audit exists to end that. It produces a small number of facts — what is used, by whom, at what cost, with what dependencies — and one figure a CFO can act on: three-year savings against one-time investment. If those numbers say stay, they say stay, and that is a legitimate outcome.
What you get
- A real-usage map: who uses what, feature by feature — including the features nobody has opened in a year.
- A cost breakdown per user and per process, so cost attaches to work rather than to a licence line.
- An integration and risk map: what depends on the platform today, and what would break first.
- A phased exit plan with costs and payback per phase — department by department, never a big-bang rip-out.
- The CFO's number: three-year savings against the one-time investment.
How it runs
Two to three weeks, fixed fee, agreed before anything starts.
- WEEK 1Access and measurement Read-only access to the platform and its usage data. Nothing is changed, nothing is switched off. We pull licence and role assignments, feature-level usage, and the integration surface.
- WEEK 1–2Interviews Around five structured interviews with the people who actually use the system daily — not only the administrators. This is where the difference between what is licensed and what is used becomes visible.
- WEEK 2Costing Cost per user and per process, features mapped against usage, and the dependency map: what else in the business consumes this platform's data.
- WEEK 2–3The exit plan A phased plan with a cost and a payback per phase, ordered so the cheapest and least risky department goes first and each phase pays for the next.
- WEEK 3Presentation The findings presented to whoever needs to approve the decision, with the three-year figure and the assumptions behind it laid out to be argued with.
Zero disruption, and what that means precisely
Read-only access throughout. No configuration is altered, no user is affected, and no data leaves your environment except the aggregates that appear in the report — which you see before anyone else does. If your security team needs the access scoped more tightly than read-only on the whole tenant, that is a normal conversation and it does not change the fee.
The fee is credited
If you proceed to a build, the audit fee is credited against phase one. The audit is therefore free in the case where it recommends action and you take it — and it is a bounded, known cost in the case where it recommends staying put.
Why we can say "stay"
We are not a Salesforce implementation partner, or anyone else's. There is no licence margin, no reseller rebate and no partner tier that a recommendation could affect. The only way this audit is worth its fee is if the number in it is true.
"We're not a Salesforce implementation partner — we have no incentive to sell you more licenses."
Who this is for
- Companies paying six or seven figures a year in per-seat fees with the suspicion that a large share of it is unused.
- Teams whose platform has become the constraint on a process rather than the support for it.
- CFOs who have been asked to approve a migration and want the arithmetic before the enthusiasm.
- Anyone who has been told that leaving is impossible, and would like that claim tested.
Who it is not for
If you are under twenty seats on a standard plan, the licence cost is almost certainly below the cost of replacing it, and the audit will tell you so at your expense. Run the numbers in the calculator below first — if rent stays under a build for five years, you have your answer already and you do not need us.
Run your own number first
Seats times price, over five years, against a representative one-time build. It is the same arithmetic the audit does properly, with your real usage instead of a headcount.
Payback: month 15
You will pay 2 250 000 CZK in rent over 5 years. An owned system costs once.
Estimates — build figure assumes a representative mid-market system scaled to seat count. The audit replaces guesses with your real numbers.
Questions about the audit
- What access do you actually need?
- Read-only access to the platform and to its usage or login reporting, plus about five user interviews of roughly forty minutes each. If read-only tenant access is not possible, exports of the same data work — it costs a little more time, not more money.
- Will our vendor find out we did this?
- Nothing in the audit touches the vendor. It is read-only work inside your own tenant, under NDA as standard. What you do with the findings afterwards is your decision and your timing.
- What if the audit says we should stay?
- Then you have a defensible number for the next time the question is raised, and you have spent a fixed fee to stop an expensive mistake. That outcome happens and it is not a failure of the audit.
- How is the fee credited?
- In full against phase one of a build, if you proceed. There is no time limit games — if you commission the first phase, the audit fee comes off it.
- Do you sign our NDA or yours?
- Either. NDA is standard on our side regardless; if your legal team prefers its own paper, that is fine.