5,439 votes755 comments · QuickBooks Online Feature Requests » Customer Center · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
Welcome to QuickBooks Projects! Projects help you organize all the pieces that make up a project, including transactions, time, and running reports so you always know how your project’s doing. This feature is currently only for QuickBooks Online Plus in Canada, UK, United States and Australia.
Please see this article for more information about projects:
This is just the beginning for Projects, and we’d love your feedback. You’ll see a feedback button in your project. Tell us how it’s going and what we can do to make Projects better.
I believe that 'Projects' now included with QBO is just like the desktop version.
I have just checked out www.xero.com and have signed up for a trial. If I am satisfied I will cancel my QuickBook subscription.
Xero seem to have all the project costing features I need and it is not a work around.
I don't understand the constant 'begging'. This thread started a number of years back and QuickBooks has never acknowledged or responded to any comments. I suggest that they don't even read this forum.
6th of July 2012 is how old this request is.
When converting from QuickBooks desktop to QBO, all VAT payments and bank reconciliation is lost. It is taking me months of effort to get all my historical information back.
This is the first time I have seen QuickBooks acknowledge these posts, and without admitting that there is even a problem. I would never recommend QBO to anybody.
Intuit does not read or respond to this forum. The original post was over two years ago. They only respond when they cannot get money from your bank account. That aspect of their system is very efficient.
It is very simple CK. It is simple database application. Intuit have done it before so it would be easy for them to implement it.
I am abandoning QBO as in my opinion it is a bookkeeping solution, not an accounting solution.
The silence from Intuit implies that they do not read the comments on this forum.
QBO without Job Costing is nothing more than a bookkeeping app. A professional accounting solution would have Job / Project costing as standard.
Anonymous 05/25, You are an Intuit Developer and that is the best you can offer? I can understand why you keep yourself anonymous.
I have looked at Sage Live which I liked until I discovered that they offer a 'Job Costing' work around at a transaction level in the same manner that QBO does.
The search continues.
Intuit set up this forum, but clearly they do not read it.
This topic was started on the 27th of August 2014. Intuit have never responded in that time so don't expect them to start now. Twitter your question. It gets the issue out in the mass public domain.
Code for adding 'Job Costing' is very easy. It's only a database. Everything about QuickBooks are database entries. Job Costing was part of the desktop version so this is not news to Intuit.
Becca,, I don't think you are using QBO. Your suggestion is very confusing and does not apply to QBO.
Can anybody that has posted here offer suggestions for an accounting solution that does have job costing?
Having to use 'Classes' as a work around is extremely inefficient. It requires every line to be assigned to a class rather than an entire invoice to a job.
I am annoyed that the Quickbooks sales person did not tell me that job costing had been removed when he encouraged me to move from the desktop version to QBO.
The removal of job costing makes QBO unfit for purpose and I am looking for an alternative for the start of the new financial year.
I have just looked at the start of this thread and see that it goes back three years. Clearly feature requests are ignored.
I was told by the QB sales team that QBO was the equivalent of the desk top version that I was using. The desk top version we have has Job Costing which we used extensively. Without Job Costing, the QBO version is unusable and unless we have this feature added we will abandon QuickBooks. There are many other online accounting options which do have Job Costing.Willie Liebrand supported this idea ·