ERP Reference Checks: The 15 Questions That Reveal What Vendors Won’t Tell You

You’re three months into your ERP evaluation, and you’ve narrowed to two finalists. Both vendors presented compelling demonstrations showing their systems handling your distribution workflows smoothly. Both submitted proposals with reasonable pricing and promising implementation timelines. Both provided three reference customers who praised their implementations during brief phone calls. And now you’re facing a $750,000 decision that will shape your operations for the next decade, with limited insight into how these vendors actually perform once sales presentations end and implementation reality begins.

Standard reference calls follow predictable patterns. The vendor provides three carefully selected customers—their happiest implementations, the companies most likely to say positive things. You ask generic questions about overall satisfaction and whether they’d recommend the vendor. The reference provides diplomatically positive responses that don’t reveal much useful information. You thank them for their time and hang up, not significantly more informed than before the call.

This reference check theatre wastes everyone’s time while failing to uncover the insights that should inform your vendor decision. The reference customer knows more about vendor performance, implementation reality, and post-go-live experience than anyone—but your questions don’t extract that knowledge. The carefully worded queries about “satisfaction” and “recommendation” allow references to provide politely positive responses without addressing the specific vendor behaviors, implementation challenges, and ongoing partnership dynamics that will determine whether your implementation succeeds or becomes one of the 60% of ERP projects that fail to meet objectives.

For mid-market distribution companies making ERP decisions, effective reference checks represent your best opportunity to understand vendor reality beyond sales promises and marketing presentations. But extracting genuinely useful information requires moving beyond vendor-provided references to find unbiased perspectives, asking specific questions that reveal actual vendor performance rather than eliciting generic praise, and creating conversation environments where references feel comfortable sharing honest assessments including challenges and disappointments.

This article provides a reference check framework specifically designed for distribution ERP evaluation. We’ll explore how to find references beyond vendor-provided contacts, examine the 15 specific questions that consistently reveal vendor realities that sales presentations obscure, and provide guidance on interpreting reference responses to identify red flags and validate vendor claims. Whether you’re evaluating enterprise platforms, mid-market solutions, or purpose-built distribution systems like Bizowie, these reference check practices will dramatically improve the quality of information informing your decision.

Why Standard Reference Checks Fail

Most ERP evaluation processes include reference checks as a standard activity, yet these calls rarely provide decision-useful information. Understanding why conventional reference approaches fail reveals what effective reference checks must do differently.

The Vendor Selection Problem

Every vendor provides reference customers carefully selected to present their implementation performance in the best possible light. These aren’t randomly selected customers representing typical vendor experience—they’re the happiest customers, the smoothest implementations, the most satisfied users. They’re the customers who will speak enthusiastically about their experience because their experience genuinely was excellent.

This selection bias means vendor-provided references tell you what’s possible when everything goes right, not what’s typical when implementations encounter the normal challenges, misalignments, and conflicts that characterize most ERP projects. An electrical distributor spoke with three vendor-provided references who all praised their implementations enthusiastically. Only later, after signing contracts and beginning implementation, did they discover through industry connections that the vendor had five recent troubled implementations at comparable companies—none of whom the vendor offered as references.

The vendor selection problem also manifests in timing. References are often companies that implemented recently enough that implementation experience is fresh, but not so recent that they’re still working through go-live challenges. This 6-18 month post-implementation window represents the honeymoon period where customers are excited about new capabilities but haven’t yet experienced the full range of ongoing vendor partnership realities.

The Generic Question Problem

Standard reference check questions yield generic, uninformative responses. “Are you satisfied with the vendor?” elicits “Yes, generally satisfied” without revealing what that satisfaction encompasses or excludes. “Would you recommend this vendor?” produces “Yes, with some caveats” that aren’t specified. “How was implementation?” generates “It had challenges but overall went well” without detail about what those challenges were or how the vendor responded.

These broad questions allow references to provide diplomatically positive responses without committing to specific assessments. A reference can truthfully say they’re “satisfied” while harboring significant frustrations about vendor support responsiveness, implementation timeline overruns, or functionality gaps. They can “recommend” the vendor while privately believing other options might have been better. Generic questions don’t create pressure for specific, revealing answers.

One building materials distributor conducted reference calls with standard generic questions and received uniformly positive responses. Only later, after implementation difficulties emerged, did they reconnect with references and ask more specific questions. The references acknowledged significant implementation challenges, ongoing support frustrations, and functionality limitations—realities they hadn’t volunteered during initial generic questioning but openly discussed when asked specifically.

The Polite Conversation Problem

Most reference calls maintain politely formal tone where discussing vendor shortcomings feels awkward or inappropriate. You’re calling strangers who are doing you a favor by taking time for the call. They don’t want to seem negative or ungrateful about their vendor relationship. And they lack context about what information would actually help your decision—should they emphasize positives to help the vendor, or be candidly critical to help you?

This politeness dynamic means references often self-censor, particularly about vendor weaknesses or disappointments. They’ll mention positives enthusiastically but gloss over negatives with euphemisms like “we had some challenges” without explaining what those challenges were or how significantly they impacted the implementation.

An HVAC distributor’s operations manager, reflecting on reference calls he’d participated in as a reference, acknowledged that “I gave pretty positive assessments because I didn’t want to hurt the vendor’s reputation and I wasn’t sure how critical to be. I mentioned that implementation took longer than expected but didn’t emphasize that it was eight months longer or discuss how much that delay cost us. I wasn’t deliberately misleading, but I definitely wasn’t forthcoming about the full reality.”

Finding References Beyond Vendor-Provided Contacts

The most valuable references are often those you identify independently through industry networks, online research, and peer connections rather than contacts the vendor carefully selected for their positive perspectives.

Industry Association Networks

Distribution industry associations—NAW, AD, ISA, STAFDA, GAWDA, and vertical-specific groups—provide natural networks for identifying distributors using your finalist vendors’ systems. Many associations maintain member directories searchable by company characteristics. Some facilitate peer connections through formal networking programs or regional chapters.

Leveraging association networks for reference identification requires some initiative. Contact association staff and explain you’re evaluating ERP systems and would like to connect with members using specific platforms. Many associations will facilitate introductions or provide contact information for members willing to discuss technology experiences. Alternatively, search association member directories for companies of similar size and vertical focus, then research their technology stacks through online searches or direct outreach.

One industrial distributor identified five companies using their finalist ERP vendor through their NAED association membership. Three agreed to reference calls. These independent references provided dramatically different perspective than vendor-provided contacts—acknowledging implementation challenges, ongoing support frustrations, and functionality gaps that vendor references hadn’t mentioned. The independent references weren’t negative overall, but they provided honest, balanced assessments that proved more decision-useful than carefully curated vendor references.

LinkedIn and Professional Networks

LinkedIn provides powerful tools for identifying professionals at companies using specific ERP systems. Search for job titles like “ERP Manager,” “IT Director,” or “Operations Director” combined with the ERP vendor’s name or product. Many professionals list their company’s ERP platform in their profiles or work histories. Once identified, you can request connections or send direct messages explaining your evaluation and requesting brief conversations about their experience.

This approach works best when you have some existing connection—perhaps you share association membership, geographic location, or industry vertical that provides conversation starting point. Cold outreach to complete strangers has lower response rates, but direct, respectful messages explaining your situation often receive positive responses from people who remember how valuable peer perspectives were during their own evaluations.

One electrical distributor’s CFO used LinkedIn to identify eight operations managers at distributors using their finalist vendor’s system. Four responded to his outreach requesting 20-minute calls. These independent conversations revealed patterns the vendor references hadn’t mentioned—particularly around support responsiveness challenges and functionality limitations with customer-specific pricing that was directly relevant to their business.

Online Review Platforms and User Communities

Software review platforms like G2, Gartner Peer Insights, Capterra, and TrustRadius aggregate customer reviews from verified users. While individual reviews should be viewed skeptically—any platform has some incentive-motivated reviews—patterns across dozens of reviews reveal consistent vendor characteristics that sales presentations obscure.

Pay particular attention to reviews from companies in distribution with similar revenue scale to yours. Enterprise reviews often reflect different priorities than mid-market experiences. Look for patterns rather than individual complaints—if multiple reviews mention slow support response times, that’s probably indicative of systemic vendor behavior rather than isolated bad experiences.

Some ERP vendors maintain user communities or online forums where customers discuss their experiences, share implementation tips, and troubleshoot issues. These communities provide unfiltered perspective on common challenges, vendor responsiveness, and product limitations. Join these communities during evaluation to observe discussions and gauge customer sentiment.

An HVAC distributor researched their finalist vendor on G2 and discovered concerning patterns. While the vendor’s overall ratings were reasonable, numerous reviews from mid-market companies specifically mentioned inadequate support for distribution-specific requirements and extensive customization needed to achieve basic functionality. This pattern directly contradicted vendor sales messaging about “comprehensive distribution capabilities out-of-box.” Armed with this insight, they probed more specifically during vendor discussions and ultimately eliminated that vendor based on distribution capability gaps.

Direct Competitive Intelligence

If you have industry peers, customers, or suppliers who’ve recently implemented ERP systems, direct conversations can provide valuable comparative perspective. These contacts can discuss their evaluation process, which vendors they considered, why they selected their chosen platform, and what they learned that they wish they’d known earlier.

These peer conversations work particularly well when you have established relationships and genuine trust. Industry conferences, association meetings, and existing business relationships provide natural opportunities for these discussions. Most people who’ve navigated ERP selection are willing to share perspectives with peers facing similar decisions—they remember how valuable guidance was during their own evaluation.

The 15 Questions That Reveal Vendor Reality

Effective reference checks ask specific questions designed to uncover vendor behaviors, implementation realities, and ongoing partnership dynamics that generic questioning misses. These 15 questions consistently produce revealing insights that inform better vendor decisions.

Question 1: “How did actual implementation timeline compare to initial quotes, and what caused any differences?”

This question reveals whether the vendor provides realistic timeline estimates or optimistic projections that serve sales goals but don’t match implementation reality. Most ERP implementations extend beyond initial estimates—what matters is the magnitude of overruns and whether extensions reflect legitimate scope changes versus vendor over-promising during sales.

Listen for specific timeline comparisons. “They quoted 7 months and we went live in 9 months” is materially different from “they quoted 6 months and it took 19 months.” Also pay attention to the reference’s explanation for timeline extensions. Extensions due to your scope increases or organizational readiness issues are fundamentally different from extensions caused by vendor resource constraints, technical limitations requiring unexpected customization, or implementation team capability gaps.

Red flags include multiple month timeline extensions (8+ months beyond initial quotes), references attributing delays primarily to vendor issues rather than customer factors, and vague or uncomfortable responses suggesting the reference doesn’t want to be specific about timeline failures.

One building materials distributor asked this question of vendor-provided references and received concerning answers. Two of three references experienced 6-8 month timeline extensions. Both attributed delays primarily to vendor factors—integration complexity exceeding vendor estimates, customization required for functionality the vendor claimed was standard, and implementation team availability issues. These specific timeline failure patterns revealed systematic vendor tendency to under-estimate implementation complexity during sales processes.

Question 2: “What unexpected costs arose during implementation beyond the initial proposal?”

Implementation cost overruns are even more revealing than timeline extensions because they indicate gaps between vendor sales messaging and implementation reality. Every implementation encounters some unexpected costs, but the magnitude and causes reveal important vendor characteristics.

Listen for categories of unexpected costs. Were they primarily implementation consulting overruns? Customization development for functionality that should have been standard? Integration complexity exceeding estimates? Infrastructure or licensing costs that weren’t included in initial proposals? Software modules or features that cost extra despite being presented as included? The cost category reveals what the vendor’s sales process overlooked or deliberately obscured.

Also pay attention to total cost variance. An implementation that costs 15-20% over initial estimate falls within normal variation. One that costs 2-3x initial estimate indicates serious vendor estimation failures or sales practices that significantly understate true costs to win business.

An industrial distributor asking this question discovered that one finalist vendor’s customer references consistently reported customization costs of $150,000-$300,000 beyond initial proposals—all for distribution-specific functionality like lot tracking, customer-specific pricing, and rebate management that the vendor’s sales materials suggested were standard capabilities. This pattern revealed systematic gap between sales messaging about distribution capabilities and implementation reality.

Question 3: “What functionality did the vendor claim was standard or out-of-box but actually required customization or workarounds?”

This question exposes gaps between vendor marketing claims and actual product capabilities. Most vendors present capabilities as “standard” or “out-of-box” during sales when reality is more nuanced—the functionality technically exists but requires extensive configuration, doesn’t work the way you’d expect, or requires customization to match your actual requirements.

Listen for specific functional areas where vendor claims didn’t match reality. Was it warehouse management capabilities, pricing and rebate functionality, financial reporting, integration capabilities, or other areas critical to distribution operations? The functional areas reveal where the vendor tends to over-promise or where their product genuinely struggles with distribution-specific requirements.

Also note the reference’s characterization of the gap. There’s significant difference between “it required more configuration than expected but worked once properly set up” versus “we had to do major customization and it still doesn’t work as well as the demo suggested.” The first indicates normal implementation complexity; the second suggests fundamental product limitations.

One electrical distributor used this question to uncover critical insights about a finalist vendor. Multiple independent references mentioned that customer-specific pricing—a core distribution requirement—required extensive custom development despite sales demonstrations showing sophisticated pricing management. This systematic pattern indicated the vendor’s pricing capabilities weren’t truly distribution-native despite marketing claims, revealing a functional gap that would significantly impact their operations.

Question 4: “How responsive and capable is vendor support when you need help? Can you describe your typical support experience?”

Post-implementation support quality dramatically impacts long-term satisfaction and total cost of ownership, yet it’s difficult to assess during vendor evaluation when you’re interacting with sales and pre-sales teams rather than support staff. References can provide unfiltered perspective on actual support experience.

Ask for specific details about support responsiveness. What are typical response times for urgent issues versus routine questions? How often do support cases escalate to higher tiers? How knowledgeable is first-level support, or do most issues require escalation? How does support handle complex problems that span multiple functional areas?

Also ask about support access and channels. Is support only available during business hours, or do they offer after-hours coverage for critical issues? Can you reach support easily through phone, email, or chat, or is access difficult requiring ticket queuing? Does the vendor charge extra for reasonable support responsiveness, or is it included in standard maintenance?

Listen for patterns suggesting support issues. References mentioning multi-day response times for urgent issues, support staff lacking distribution knowledge, frequent ticket closures without actually solving problems, or substantial premium fees for adequate support all indicate vendor support challenges that will impact your long-term experience.

A food distributor asking this question across multiple references for a finalist vendor discovered concerning support patterns. Most references mentioned support response times of 2-4 business days for non-critical issues and 8-24 hours for urgent issues—far slower than references for their other finalist vendor. Several references noted they’d purchased premium support contracts at $15,000-$25,000 annually to get better response times because standard support was inadequate. These patterns revealed systemic support challenges that would create ongoing frustration and costs.

Question 5: “What percentage of your implementation consulting hours came from the vendor’s team versus third-party partners, and how did that impact quality?”

Many vendors leverage implementation partner networks rather than providing implementations directly. This partner model can work well, but it also creates quality variation and accountability diffusion that impact implementation outcomes. Understanding the vendor’s actual implementation delivery model helps set realistic expectations.

If the reference worked primarily with implementation partners rather than vendor staff, probe their experience. Was the partner knowledgeable and capable? Did they have adequate resources and availability? When issues arose, did the vendor support their partner effectively, or did accountability gaps emerge? Would the reference work with the same partner again?

Also ask whether they met the actual implementation team during sales processes or only learned who would implement after signing contracts. Vendors sometimes present their most experienced implementation consultants during sales, then staff actual implementations with junior partners. This bait-and-switch creates implementation risks that references can reveal.

One HVAC distributor learned through reference checks that their finalist vendor’s implementations were entirely partner-delivered using a network of regional implementers with highly variable quality. Two vendor references had excellent experiences with capable partners; one had terrible experience with an understaffed partner who lacked distribution knowledge. The vendor essentially functioned as a software licensor rather than implementation partner, creating implementation outcome risk depending on which partner was assigned.

Question 6: “Can you share specific examples of how the vendor handled problems or disagreements during implementation?”

Vendor behavior when things go wrong reveals more about true partnership quality than behavior when things go right. Every implementation encounters challenges—what matters is how vendors respond to problems, take accountability, and work collaboratively toward resolution.

Ask for specific examples rather than general characterizations. How did the vendor respond when implementation milestones were missed? When functionality didn’t work as demonstrated? When scope disagreements emerged? When costs exceeded estimates? These specific scenarios reveal whether vendors take accountability, deflect blame, work collaboratively with customers, or create adversarial dynamics.

Also listen for references mentioning vendor flexibility and accommodation. Did the vendor work creatively to address unexpected challenges, or rigidly insist on their standard approach despite it not fitting the customer’s needs? Were they willing to adjust timelines, approaches, or costs when legitimate issues emerged? Flexible, collaborative vendors create better implementation outcomes than rigid, policy-focused vendors.

Red flags include references mentioning vendor blame-shifting when problems occurred, contractual rigidity that prevented addressing legitimate issues, or adversarial dynamics where the vendor treated the customer as opponent rather than partner. These behaviors during implementation likely continue during ongoing support relationship.

An industrial distributor asking this question heard concerning patterns from one vendor’s references. Multiple references described the vendor as “very process-driven” and “contractually focused” when problems emerged, meaning they cited contract terms and standard procedures rather than working collaboratively toward solutions. One reference specifically mentioned that when implementation delays occurred due to vendor resource constraints, the vendor initially tried to charge additional fees for timeline extensions—backing down only after the customer threatened contract termination. These rigid, unaccommodating behaviors suggested vendor partnership approach that would create ongoing friction.

Question 7: “What does the vendor do particularly well, and what do they struggle with?”

This open-ended question invites balanced assessment encompassing both strengths and weaknesses. Most references will more comfortably discuss vendor strengths, but following up about struggles often produces honest acknowledgment of limitations that are relevant to your decision.

The specific strengths and weaknesses references mention reveal what to expect from the vendor. If multiple references praise implementation project management but note weak technical architecture guidance, you know the vendor brings organizational competence but may need supplementary technical expertise. If references praise technical capabilities but mention poor communication and responsiveness, you should expect technically sound solutions delivered through frustrating processes.

Also notice whether references struggle to identify genuine vendor strengths beyond generic praise, or whether they articulate specific, meaningful capabilities that differentiate the vendor. Similarly, if references have trouble acknowledging any weaknesses, their assessment may be less candid than references who can thoughtfully balance strengths and limitations.

One building materials distributor heard consistent patterns across references for a finalist vendor. References universally praised the vendor’s distribution domain knowledge and functional capabilities for warehouse management and pricing. However, most also mentioned the vendor’s implementation project management was disorganized—timelines weren’t reliably tracked, communication was inconsistent, and the customer often had to drive implementation progress. This pattern suggested the vendor brought strong product capabilities but weak delivery discipline—a combination requiring customers to provide project management energy the vendor lacked.

Question 8: “How has the vendor’s product evolved since your implementation, and are you satisfied with their pace of innovation?”

Vendor product roadmap and innovation pace significantly impact long-term value. You’re not just buying today’s capabilities—you’re partnering with a vendor for 7-10 years and need them to continue investing in product evolution that keeps you competitive.

Ask references about product enhancements they’ve received since implementation. Has the vendor delivered meaningful new capabilities? Have they addressed functional gaps or technical limitations? Are updates substantive or merely cosmetic? How frequently do meaningful enhancements arrive? Understanding actual product evolution helps validate vendor roadmap claims and assess whether they genuinely invest in ongoing innovation.

Also ask about roadmap credibility. Did the vendor deliver capabilities they promised during sales and implementation? Have roadmap commitments materialized or consistently slipped? Vendors who promise future capabilities but never deliver indicate product investment priorities that may not align with distribution market needs.

An electrical distributor asked this question and learned concerning information about a finalist vendor. References who’d implemented 2-3 years prior noted that the vendor had delivered very few meaningful enhancements since their implementations. Several capabilities the vendor promised during sales and implementation—including improved mobile interfaces and enhanced reporting—still hadn’t materialized years later. This stagnant product evolution suggested the vendor wasn’t substantially investing in platform advancement, raising concerns about whether the product would remain competitive over the 10-year timeframe the distributor expected to use it.

Question 9: “What’s your biggest frustration or disappointment with the vendor or system?”

This direct question about disappointments gives references explicit permission to discuss negatives that polite conversation usually suppresses. Most people, when directly asked about frustrations, will share them—particularly if you’ve established some rapport and trust earlier in the conversation.

The specific frustrations references mention reveal what will likely frustrate you. If references consistently mention support responsiveness, you’ll probably experience the same. If they’re frustrated about functionality gaps in specific areas relevant to your operations, those gaps will impact you too. If they mention vendor responsiveness to feedback or feature requests, you’ll encounter the same vendor behaviors.

Also note the magnitude of frustrations. Are references mentioning minor annoyances that exist in any system, or significant operational impacts that materially affect their business? Minor frustrations are expected; major disappointments warrant serious consideration in your vendor decision.

Listen carefully to how references characterize their frustrations. If they say “this is frustrating but we can work around it,” that’s materially different from “this significantly impacts our operations and we’re considering alternatives.” The first suggests manageable limitations; the second indicates serious problems.

One food distributor asking this question heard a striking pattern. Three independent references for a finalist vendor all mentioned frustration with the vendor’s pricing and contract management. The vendor was aggressive about annual license cost increases, inflexible about contract terms, and charged substantial fees for capabilities the references expected to be included. While these frustrations weren’t about product capabilities, they indicated vendor commercial practices that would create ongoing budget pressures and relationship friction—valuable intelligence that influenced the distributor’s vendor decision.

Question 10: “If you were starting over today, would you choose the same vendor? Why or why not?”

This hypothetical question cuts through diplomatic responses to reveal whether the reference genuinely believes they made the right vendor choice. People can be “satisfied” with their vendor while privately believing they’d make a different choice knowing what they know now.

Listen carefully to the immediacy and confidence of responses. References who instantly answer “absolutely, yes” without hesitation likely had genuinely positive experiences. References who pause before answering, or who give qualified responses like “probably” or “it depends,” reveal less confidence that they made the optimal choice.

Also pay attention to the reasoning behind their answer. Are they primarily satisfied because the implementation is complete and they’re past the pain, or because the vendor and product genuinely met expectations? Would they choose the same vendor because it’s truly the best option, or because switching would be too disruptive and expensive? Understanding their reasoning helps interpret the reliability of their endorsement.

Red flags include references explicitly saying they’d choose differently, references unable to give clear affirmative answers, or references whose reasoning reveals resignation (“we’re stuck with it now”) rather than genuine satisfaction.

An HVAC distributor asking this question to multiple references for a finalist vendor heard concerning equivocation. Only one of four references gave unambiguous “yes, we’d choose them again” responses. Two said “probably, but we’d look more carefully at alternatives,” and one said they’d “seriously consider other options because this has been more difficult than expected.” These qualified responses indicated the references weren’t confident they’d made the optimal vendor choice—valuable signal that this vendor likely wouldn’t be the distributor’s optimal choice either.

Question 11: “How much ongoing consulting support do you require, and what does that cost annually?”

Ongoing consultant dependency dramatically impacts total cost of ownership but is rarely disclosed during vendor sales processes. References can reveal whether the vendor’s system enables self-sufficiency or creates permanent consultant dependency for routine needs.

Ask specifically about what requires consultant involvement. Can the reference’s internal team handle routine configuration changes, report development, and system optimization, or do these require vendor consultants? When they need consulting support, how expensive is it and how quickly can they get resources? Do they maintain ongoing consulting retainers, or engage consultants on project basis?

Also ask what the reference wishes they could do themselves but requires consultants for. These capabilities reveal system limitations around self-service that will impact your operations. If references need consultants for basic reporting or standard configuration changes, you’ll face the same dependency and associated costs.

Listen for annual consulting costs exceeding $50,000-$75,000 as signals of systems that are too complex for mid-market internal teams to manage independently. While some consulting costs are normal and appropriate, excessive ongoing dependency indicates system complexity that requires permanent expensive support.

One industrial distributor asking this question discovered that references for a finalist vendor consistently spent $80,000-$120,000 annually on ongoing consulting support—not for enhancements or new capabilities but for routine maintenance, reporting development, and configuration changes. Multiple references expressed frustration that tasks they expected to handle internally required expensive consultant involvement because the system was too complex for business users to manage. This permanent consultant dependency would dramatically increase total cost of ownership compared to systems enabling greater self-sufficiency.

Question 12: “What surprised you most about the implementation process or the system?”

Open-ended questions about surprises often reveal insights that specific questions miss. References will mention unexpected challenges, unanticipated complexities, or pleasant surprises that characterize their actual experience versus expectations set during sales.

Negative surprises reveal gaps between sales messaging and reality. Perhaps implementation required much more internal resource commitment than expected. Maybe data migration was far more complex than vendor estimates suggested. Possibly the system’s user interface was less intuitive than demonstrations implied, requiring more extensive training. These negative surprises indicate areas where the vendor’s sales process creates unrealistic expectations.

Positive surprises, while less common in these discussions, also provide valuable insight. Perhaps the vendor’s support exceeded expectations, or post-go-live optimization delivered more operational improvements than anticipated, or the system’s flexibility enabled creative solutions to unexpected problems. Positive surprises indicate vendor strengths that sales messaging may undersell.

An electrical distributor asking this question heard a consistent negative surprise across multiple references. Several mentioned being shocked by how much internal resource commitment implementation required—far exceeding what the vendor communicated during sales. One reference estimated their internal team spent approximately 3,000 hours on implementation activities when they’d budgeted 1,200 hours based on vendor guidance. This surprise revealed systematic vendor tendency to minimize internal resource requirements during sales, creating false expectations that led to implementation challenges.

Question 13: “How well does the system actually handle [specific critical requirement for your business]?”

Replace the bracketed phrase with your most critical distribution-specific requirements—perhaps customer-specific pricing, lot tracking, rebate management, or multi-location inventory management. This question tests whether vendor capabilities demonstrated during sales translate to actual operational effectiveness.

Be specific about your requirement so the reference understands what you’re asking about. Rather than asking generally about “pricing,” specify “We need to manage customer-specific pricing with volume discounts, promotional pricing, contract pricing, and vendor rebates that flow through to customer pricing. How well does the system handle that complexity?”

Listen for references describing workarounds, limitations, or customizations required to achieve the functionality you need. If the vendor demonstrated capability smoothly during sales but references describe it as complicated, limited, or requiring extensive customization, the sales demonstration didn’t reflect operational reality.

One building materials distributor asked references specifically about freight and landed cost allocation—a critical requirement for their operations. Vendor demonstrations showed sophisticated freight management, but references revealed it was “complicated to configure” and “doesn’t handle all our scenarios without customization.” Several references had spent $40,000-$80,000 customizing freight functionality that sales presentations suggested was comprehensive out-of-box. These insights revealed significant gaps between demonstrated capabilities and operational reality for their specific critical requirement.

Question 14: “What advice would you give to someone implementing this system based on your experience?”

This question invites references to share lessons learned that could help you avoid their mistakes or navigate implementation more effectively. Most people who’ve completed challenging implementations want to help others succeed and will share candid advice when invited.

Listen for advice that reveals vendor or product characteristics. If references advise “get everything in writing because verbal commitments aren’t honored,” that reveals vendor credibility issues. If they suggest “budget 50% more time than vendor estimates,” that indicates systematic timeline optimism. If they recommend “hire independent project management because vendor doesn’t provide adequate PM,” that shows vendor implementation delivery gaps.

Also note whether advice focuses on managing vendor relationships versus managing internal readiness. Advice about managing vendor accountability differs meaningfully from advice about ensuring data quality or stakeholder engagement—the first suggests vendor partnership challenges while the second indicates normal implementation success factors.

An HVAC distributor heard consistent advice patterns from one vendor’s references that proved very revealing. Multiple references strongly advised “don’t let the vendor staff your implementation with junior consultants—insist on senior resources” and “verify everything the vendor commits to in writing because verbal promises aren’t reliable.” This advice pattern revealed vendor practices around implementation team quality and commitment credibility that warranted serious consideration in their vendor decision.

Question 15: “Can you connect me with someone else at your company who could share a different perspective—perhaps from warehouse operations, customer service, or another department?”

Sales-arranged reference calls typically connect you with IT managers or operations directors who led ERP selection and have organizational interest in defending their vendor choice. But end users—the warehouse staff, customer service representatives, and accounting team members who use the system daily—often have different perspectives that reveal usability and practical operational considerations.

Asking the primary reference to facilitate connections with end users accomplishes several goals. It reveals whether the reference is confident enough in their vendor to expose you to unfiltered user perspectives. It provides insight into actual user experience beyond management assessment. And it tests whether the system genuinely works well across the organization or only satisfies management while frustrating front-line users.

Not every reference will facilitate end-user connections, and that’s fine—you’re testing their confidence in their vendor choice as much as seeking additional perspectives. References who readily connect you with end users typically had positive implementations where users genuinely like the system. References who decline or seem hesitant may be protecting you from discovering user dissatisfaction.

One industrial distributor asking this question of vendor-provided references received mixed responses. Two references readily connected them with warehouse managers and customer service staff who provided candid perspectives on system usability and operational effectiveness. One reference was clearly uncomfortable with the request and declined, suggesting “management perspective is probably sufficient for your evaluation.” The willingness to provide end-user access proved revealing about reference confidence in their vendor—those with good implementations were transparent; those with concerns were protective.

Interpreting Reference Responses: Red Flags and Validation

Understanding how to interpret reference responses—distinguishing between minor concerns and serious red flags, recognizing patterns across multiple references, and validating vendor claims—determines whether reference checks inform better decisions or simply confirm existing biases.

Red Flag Patterns That Should Concern You

Certain reference patterns consistently predict vendor relationships you’ll regret. When multiple independent references mention the same issues, these patterns reveal systemic vendor characteristics rather than isolated incidents.

Timeline and budget overruns mentioned by multiple references indicate vendor systematic estimation failures or sales processes that deliberately understate implementation complexity to win business. One reference experiencing significant overruns might reflect their unique circumstances; three references reporting similar overruns reveals vendor tendencies you’ll likely experience.

Support responsiveness complaints across references signal systemic vendor support challenges that will frustrate you throughout your long-term relationship. If references consistently describe slow response times, inadequate support knowledge, or premium fees required for reasonable responsiveness, expect to encounter the same support limitations.

Functionality gaps requiring customization that multiple references mention indicate vendor product limitations despite sales claims of comprehensive capabilities. When references describe extensive customization for functionality the vendor demonstrated as standard, those gaps will impact your implementation similarly.

Vendor relationship challenges—rigid contract interpretation, inflexible problem-solving, blame-shifting when issues arise—mentioned across references reveal vendor partnership approach that creates friction throughout implementation and ongoing relationship.

Distinguishing Implementation Challenges from Vendor Problems

Not every challenge references mention indicates vendor problems. Some implementation difficulties reflect normal ERP project complexity, customer organizational readiness issues, or legitimate business requirement complexity rather than vendor limitations.

Implementation challenges attributable to customer factors include timeline extensions due to customer resource constraints or organizational readiness issues, scope increases the customer requested during implementation, data quality problems in legacy systems requiring extensive cleanup, and change management difficulties with user adoption. These challenges reflect customer circumstances more than vendor performance.

Implementation challenges indicating vendor problems include timeline extensions due to vendor resource constraints or consultant capability gaps, functionality requiring customization because product doesn’t actually provide capabilities demonstrated during sales, integration complexity exceeding vendor estimates and requiring unexpected development, and vendor responsiveness failures when problems emerged during implementation.

Ask follow-up questions to understand whether challenges references mention reflect vendor issues or customer factors. “Who was primarily responsible for that delay—was it resource constraints on your side or the vendor’s?” helps distinguish between vendor performance problems and customer readiness issues.

When Positive References Are Genuinely Reassuring

Not all positive reference feedback is carefully managed vendor theater. Genuinely enthusiastic references provide meaningful validation when they display certain characteristics.

Specific praise rather than generic enthusiasm indicates authentic satisfaction. References who can articulate precisely what the vendor did well—”their implementation PM kept us on track with weekly status meetings and clear accountability,” or “their support team typically responds to critical issues within 2 hours and genuinely understands distribution operations”—are describing real experiences rather than providing diplomatic platitudes.

Unsolicited weakness acknowledgment alongside strengths suggests balanced, credible assessment. References who voluntarily mention limitations or challenges while explaining why those concerns didn’t outweigh benefits demonstrate thoughtful perspective rather than sales-scripted responses.

Willingness to facilitate end-user access or provide additional time for follow-up questions indicates reference confidence in their vendor choice. References with genuinely positive experiences don’t fear additional scrutiny.

Consistent themes across multiple independent references (not vendor-provided contacts) provide strong validation. When you identify references through industry networks or LinkedIn and they independently echo positive themes about vendor responsiveness, implementation quality, or product capabilities, that convergence suggests genuine vendor strengths rather than managed messaging.

Conducting Effective Reference Calls

Asking the right questions matters, but conducting reference calls effectively—creating environments where references feel comfortable sharing honest assessments, building rapport that encourages candor, and navigating conversations skillfully—determines whether you extract valuable insights or receive diplomatic non-information.

Preparing for Reference Calls

Effective reference calls require preparation. Research the reference company to understand their operations, size, and business model. Review any publicly available information about their ERP implementation. Prepare your 15 core questions plus follow-ups specific to issues most relevant to your evaluation.

Allocate sufficient time—30-45 minutes minimum for meaningful conversation. Rushed 15-minute calls don’t allow depth necessary for valuable insights. Consider scheduling calls when you can give undivided attention rather than fitting them between meetings.

For independent references you’ve identified yourself (not vendor-provided contacts), send advance email explaining your evaluation situation and what you’re hoping to learn. This context helps references prepare to share relevant experiences and demonstrates respect for their time.

Building Rapport and Trust

Reference calls work best when you establish enough rapport that references feel comfortable being candid rather than diplomatically vague. Start with warm, conversational tone rather than formal interrogation. Express genuine appreciation for their time and willingness to share their experience.

Consider sharing something about your situation that creates connection—perhaps you’re in the same industry vertical, geographic region, or company size range. Common ground helps references relate to your circumstances and motivates them to provide genuinely helpful information.

Acknowledge that you’re looking for honest, balanced perspective rather than just positive endorsements. Explicitly state something like “I’m trying to understand both the vendor’s strengths and limitations so we can make an informed decision. Candid feedback about challenges you’ve experienced is just as valuable as hearing about what went well.” This framing gives references permission to discuss problems without feeling like they’re being negative or harming the vendor.

Using Follow-Up Questions Effectively

The 15 core questions provide structure, but follow-up questions extract the depth that makes reference calls valuable. When references give generic or vague responses, probe for specifics. When they mention challenges briefly, ask them to elaborate. When something doesn’t quite make sense, ask for clarification.

Effective follow-ups include “Can you give me a specific example of that?”, “What do you mean by [term they used]?”, “How did that impact your operations?”, and “How did the vendor respond when that issue occurred?” These follow-ups transform surface-level responses into detailed insights.

Also use follow-ups to test vendor claims. If your vendor claimed specific capabilities or made promises about implementation approach, ask references whether their experience aligns: “The vendor told us that customer-specific pricing is standard functionality—does that match your experience?” This reality-checking helps identify gaps between sales messaging and customer reality.

Taking Notes and Comparing Across References

Document reference calls thoroughly—both specific facts and your impressions of the reference’s tone, confidence, and candor. Detailed notes enable pattern recognition across multiple references and provide documentation for decision-making discussions with your evaluation team.

After conducting several reference calls, review notes collectively to identify patterns. Are multiple independent references mentioning the same vendor strengths or weaknesses? Do vendor-provided references describe different experiences than independent references you identified? Where do reference experiences align or diverge from vendor sales messaging?

These patterns matter more than individual reference opinions. One reference’s negative experience might reflect their unique circumstances; three independent references describing similar challenges indicates systematic vendor characteristics you’ll likely encounter.

The Bizowie Reference Approach: Transparency and Access

Understanding how vendors approach reference programs reveals their confidence in customer satisfaction and implementation quality. Bizowie’s reference approach reflects commitment to transparency and customer success.

Comprehensive Reference Access

Rather than providing carefully curated lists of three references, Bizowie offers extensive reference access including multiple customers in your industry vertical or with similar operational characteristics, end-user access to warehouse staff, customer service, and other operational roles who use the system daily, and technical references who can discuss implementation experience, integration approaches, and IT management considerations.

This comprehensive access reflects confidence that customers across the organization and across diverse implementation circumstances will provide positive, authentic assessments of their Bizowie experience.

Reference Customers in Distribution Verticals

Bizowie serves mid-market distribution companies across diverse verticals—building materials, industrial supply, electrical, HVAC, food and beverage, chemicals, and more. Reference access includes customers in your specific vertical who understand the distribution-specific requirements, operational challenges, and industry nuances most relevant to your evaluation.

Speaking with references who share your industry context provides insights generic references can’t deliver. They understand why certain capabilities matter for your operations, can speak to how Bizowie handles industry-specific requirements, and can share vertical-specific implementation insights that inform your decision.

Honest Discussion of Implementation Realities

Bizowie references openly discuss implementation realities including typical timelines of 3-6 months that reflect actual experience rather than optimistic sales estimates, normal implementation challenges they encountered and how Bizowie’s team addressed them, and post-implementation support experience and ongoing partnership quality.

This honest discussion reflects confidence that Bizowie implementations genuinely deliver on sales promises—customers can discuss challenges candidly because those challenges were managed effectively and didn’t undermine overall positive outcomes.

Validation of Distribution-Specific Capabilities

References can validate Bizowie’s distribution-specific capabilities that sales demonstrations highlighted including sophisticated pricing with customer-specific rules, volume discounts, and rebate management, comprehensive warehouse management with location-directed picking and RF scanning, multi-location inventory management with real-time visibility, purchasing with vendor management and landed cost tracking, and financial management with distribution-appropriate reporting and margin analysis.

These capability validations help prospects understand that Bizowie’s distribution-native design isn’t marketing positioning—it’s reflected in actual product functionality that customers use daily.

Conclusion: Making Reference Checks Actually Useful

ERP reference checks represent your best opportunity to understand vendor reality beyond sales presentations and marketing materials. But standard reference approaches—vendor-provided contacts, generic questions, politely superficial conversations—fail to extract the insights that should inform your vendor decision.

Effective reference checks require moving beyond vendor-curated contacts to find independent references through industry networks, online research, and professional connections. They require asking specific questions designed to reveal vendor behaviors, implementation realities, and ongoing partnership dynamics that generic questioning misses. And they require conducting conversations that create environments where references feel comfortable sharing honest, balanced assessments including challenges and disappointments alongside strengths.

The 15 questions outlined in this article consistently reveal vendor realities that sales presentations obscure—implementation timeline reliability, hidden costs, functionality gaps, support quality, ongoing consultant dependency, vendor problem-solving approach, product evolution pace, and genuine customer satisfaction beyond diplomatic references. Asking these questions systematically across multiple references creates pattern recognition that validates or contradicts vendor claims and enables informed vendor decisions.

For mid-market distribution companies evaluating ERP platforms, these reference check practices are especially valuable because the vendor decisions you’re making will shape your operations for 7-10 years and consume substantial financial resources. Understanding whether vendors deliver on their promises, support customers effectively through implementation challenges, and provide quality ongoing partnership isn’t just helpful—it’s essential for making vendor decisions you won’t regret.

When you’re ready to conduct your own reference checks on Bizowie—speaking with distribution customers who can share their honest experiences with implementation timelines, distribution-specific capabilities, operational improvements they’ve achieved, and ongoing partnership quality—schedule a demonstration and request reference access to customers in your industry vertical and operational complexity range.

The most successful ERP implementations aren’t those selecting the most heavily marketed vendors or following the most established consultants’ recommendations. They’re implementations where vendor capabilities, partnership approach, and delivery execution genuinely align with customer needs and expectations—alignment that effective reference checks reveal better than any other evaluation activity.