Comparison

Your group chat is not the problem

It is fast, everybody has it, nobody needs training and there is no bill. For a team of four it is the correct tool and no software will beat it. The trouble starts at about six people, and it is always the same three failures.

Honest about groups The three failures How to tell if it costs you

Book a free demo See pricing

In short

A WhatsApp group is an excellent coordination tool for a very small team and a poor system of record for any team. It cannot say who is responsible for something, it cannot tell you what is outstanding, and it has no memory you can query - so as the team grows past five or six people, work agreed in the group starts falling through it. The fix is not to abandon WhatsApp; it is to keep it and add something that turns those messages into a list somebody can check.

Works well up to: About 5 people
Failure one: No ownership - everybody assumes
Failure two: No outstanding list
Failure three: No searchable memory
What to keep: WhatsApp itself

Credit where it is due

What a group chat does brilliantly

Everybody already uses it

Zero adoption cost, zero training, no licence. Nothing in software beats already being installed.

It is instant

For "who can cover the counter at two", a group chat is the correct and fastest tool.

Nobody is excluded

The least technical person on your team is fully competent in it. That is rarer than it sounds.

It carries tone

A team chat does social work that a task board cannot, and that is worth keeping.

It costs nothing

Any replacement has to beat free, which most task software does not manage on value.

It works everywhere

Bad signal, old phone, any country. It degrades gracefully in a way web apps do not.

In a group

Asked: 11:40 Tuesday
Read by: 4 people
Accepted by: Nobody
Noticed: Friday
Noticed by: The customer

Failure one

Nobody owns anything

"Can someone ring Mrs Diaz back about the warranty?" goes into the group at 11:40 on a Tuesday. Four people read it. Each of them assumes one of the others is closer to it, and all four are right that somebody should.

Nobody rings. On Friday Mrs Diaz rings you. Nobody was lazy and nobody lied - the message simply never became one person's job, and a group chat has no mechanism to make it one.

A message to everybody is a message to nobody
The diffusion is worse as the group grows, not better
Reading it is not accepting it, and there is no way to tell the difference
The owner cannot see the gap until a customer creates it

Questions with no answer

What is overdue?: Unanswerable
What is blocked?: Unanswerable
Who is carrying most?: Unanswerable
Did we ring her back?: Scroll and hope
What did we agree in June?: Gone

Failure two

You cannot ask it what is outstanding

This is the one owners feel most. There is no question you can ask a group chat that returns the things that are not done. You can scroll, which is not the same, and which finds only what you remember to look for.

So the answer to "what is outstanding?" becomes walking round and asking four people - which takes forty minutes, returns what each of them happens to remember, and has to be repeated tomorrow.

No list of open work, only a transcript of conversation
Scrolling finds what you already remember, not what you forgot
"What is late?" has no answer at all
Asking people gives you their memory, not the facts

With Bosun

Answered from: Your document
Figure: Quoted exactly
Source: Named
Not written down?: It says so
You get: The list of gaps

Failure three

The same question, asked nine times

"What's my approval limit?" gets asked in the group, and whoever is free answers from memory. Next month somebody asks again and gets a slightly different answer. Neither is checkable, and the real figure is in a document three people know exists.

A group chat has no memory you can query, so every answer is somebody's recollection. That is how two members of staff end up confidently operating to different rules.

Answers come from memory, not from your written procedures
Two people can be told two different things, and both believe it
Nobody ever finds out which questions keep getting asked
The document with the real answer stays unread

Keep the group

Bosun replaces it: No
Where Bosun works: One-to-one chats
Your group: Carries on as before
What changes: Work becomes a list
Staff install: Nothing

The honest test

Is it costing you yet

Do not buy anything on the strength of a website. Try this instead, this week, and let the answer decide.

If you cannot come up with examples, your group chat is working and you should keep your money. That happens, and it is a perfectly good outcome for you - just not for us.

Write down every job you personally chased this week, and how long it took
Count the times a customer told you about something before your team did
Ask two staff the same policy question separately and compare the answers
Count how many things you know are outstanding without asking anybody
If those numbers are small, stay on WhatsApp. If they are not, that is the cost

Other comparisons

How it stacks up elsewhere

One-time vs subscription When buying software outright beats renting it, and the three cases where renting genuinely wins. Bosun vs Periskope A shared WhatsApp inbox for talking to customers, against an assistant for running your own team. vs per-seat WhatsApp tools Why a $24-a-seat browser extension costs more than software you own, and the one thing it does better. Bosun vs Connecteam Connecteam is cheaper and does more around rotas. Here is exactly when it is the better buy. vs Trello & Asana Boards are cheap and good. They also need everybody to open them, which is where they fail.

See all comparisons