Andy Janaitis works on connecting the software small manufacturers already use so they can trust their business data and see where operations need attention. Janaitis Business Systems grew from their advertising work, where connecting sales data to ad platforms helped clients measure performance.
Andy Janaitis helps small manufacturers make the software they already use work together, so they can trust their business numbers and spot operational bottlenecks.
Their move into systems work grew from six years in advertising: connecting sales data to ad platforms helped clients understand which campaigns were making money.
Their posts help owners weigh whether disconnected tools are creating problems—and what to connect first.
Janaitis turns a technical integration problem into a practical business question: where are people retyping information, reconciling conflicting numbers, or unable to answer a question because systems are disconnected?
Their advice is deliberately limited: connect systems when data is being retyped, the same number disagrees across tools, or a missing link blocks an answer; otherwise, leave them alone.
That restraint gives readers a clear way to assess integration work without assuming every tool needs to be connected.
Across the four posts reviewed, Andy Janaitis makes one argument in several ways: the software a small business already owns usually isn't the problem; the gaps between systems, and the person who fills them by hand, are.
Read more
The posts trace a move from running paid advertising to running Janaitis Business Systems. The recommendation stays consistent: measure first, connect only what's broken, and leave the rest alone.
Business software was never bought as a set
Janaitis's most repeated diagnosis: a manufacturer's software stack is a pile of separate decisions, not a system.
Read more
An ERP was chosen years ago by someone who has moved on; sales picked the CRM, accounting picked QuickBooks, and someone else chose a quoting tool.
Spreadsheets hold the whole thing together.
Each purchase solved one department's problem, leaving nobody responsible for the gaps.
The same number lives in multiple places, and the versions disagree.
Janaitis says they hear some version of this on almost every first call with a manufacturer, usually after the owner lists what they are paying for.
Janaitis opens one post with the line they hear on first calls, "The systems don't talk to each other," and then lists what typically follows it: an ERP, a CRM, a quoting tool, QuickBooks, and a few spreadsheets. The same phrase turns up at a Maryland MEP summit on manufacturing technology, where Janaitis attributes it to Mike Kelleher's opening remarks rather than claiming it, and notes it is the same problem the firm works on.
Janaitis's advertising years inform where they recommend starting.
Read more
Clients hired the agency for campaigns, but most could not say which ads made them money.
The problem wasn't bad ad data: close data never travelled back to the ad platform, leaving an incomplete picture no matter how good the campaign reporting looked.
Janaitis's first move is to pull the relevant data from each system, establish how each campaign performed and identify which metrics connect to real profit.
That baseline supports quarterly strategies and monthly forecasts.
Performance improved most when offline sales data was pushed back into Google and Meta.
Janaitis traces one customer journey: someone clicks an ad, becomes a lead through a website form, enters a CRM and follows a sales process with uneven updates.
The close data never connects back to the ad platform.
Nothing in that chain is broken on its own, which is why the problem stays hidden.
A recurring figure in the posts is the employee who retypes orders between systems, reconciles two reports by hand and becomes essential to keeping the process running.
Read more
Janaitis treats this as a risk, not a virtue: the same person is the reason work stops when they are on vacation. A related image casts month-end close as something owners reconstruct rather than receive: three systems produce three answers, and one person reconciles them.
“They're the reason it works, and the reason it stops when they're on vacation.” Janaitis ends the post by asking, “Who's the person holding your systems together?”
Connect two systems only when one of three things is true
Janaitis offers a narrow test, not a blanket call for integration.
Read more
Connect two systems when someone is retyping data between them, when the same number appears in both but they disagree, or when a question goes unanswered because the link was never made.
If none of those conditions holds, leave it alone.
The post also rejects two expected pitches: that the fix is a new system, or that it is connecting everything.
The post lists three conditions, then gives the negative case: “If none of those is true, leave it alone.”
Janaitis presents the move into systems work as a conclusion reached after six years of running ads, not a change of direction.
Read more
Clients paid for campaigns, but the work that moved their numbers happened underneath: connecting the CRM to ad platforms, building dashboards and forecasts from trusted numbers, and fixing operational bottlenecks behind marketing performance.
The same breaks appeared outside marketing: quoting that doesn't connect to the ERP, production numbers in a spreadsheet and month-end reporting done by hand.
Janaitis says the new firm was in development from March before launching, and that PPC Pitbulls continues unchanged, with the same team, work and clients.
“We were getting paid for the visible half and creating the value in the invisible half. So we built a firm around it.”
The argument widens across the posts. It starts with an advertising measurement problem—offline sales data must be pushed back into ad platforms—and becomes a broader position: breaks exist across the systems stack, with marketing simply the easiest place to see them.
The buyer is a small manufacturer that cannot hire a systems team
Janaitis names the target client: small businesses, especially manufacturers with roughly $2M to $20M in revenue—shops that cannot justify a full-time systems employee.
Read more
The offer is to connect software the manufacturer already pays for into one trusted set of numbers, then fix whichever bottleneck those numbers expose.
Manufacturing is the stated focus, but Janaitis's posts name no clients or case studies.
Ask for examples of work with manufacturers before treating the vertical as proven coverage.
“Most owners that size close the month by reconstructing it. Three systems, three answers, and one person in the middle who quietly became the integration.”
Every argument ends with a question for the reader
The posts follow a consistent shape: a quoted line or blunt claim, a brief explanation of the problem, a usable rule or observation, and a closing question for the reader.
Read more
The questions ask who is holding their systems together, which system still doesn't talk to the rest, and where a business still has to ask a person instead of a system. Janaitis values industry events mainly for the connections made, rather than the sessions, and names attendees they met or caught up with at the Maryland MEP summit.
In the summit recap, Janaitis writes that the strength of these events lies in the connections made, then asks, “What's the one system in your business that still doesn't talk to the rest?”
This is the clearest statement of the business Andy Janaitis runs and the problem it was set up to solve. The other pieces refer back to it.
Announces the launch of Janaitis Business Systems after six years of running paid advertising.
The argument: clients hired the agency for campaigns, but results came from the work underneath—connecting the CRM to ad platforms, building dashboards and forecasts on trustworthy numbers, and fixing the operational bottlenecks behind marketing performance.
The firm targets small manufacturers with roughly $2M to $20M in revenue that cannot justify a full-time systems team and currently close the month by reconciling three systems by hand.
The post says PPC Pitbulls continues unchanged, with the same team and clients, and that the new brand had been in development since March.
For brands planning a campaign
A manufacturing software vendor can treat the two brands as one team: the ad agency still operates, while the integration firm is the newer, manufacturing-facing offer. A collaboration brief should identify which brand is speaking and lead with owners’ month-end reconciliation pain rather than software features.
Answers “why does an ads person now sell systems work?”
Read more
It traces the transition step by step, so newcomers can follow the reasoning rather than take the career change on faith.
Explains the transition as a natural one: advertising was always about measurement, and most clients could not say which ads made money.
The problem was not bad ad data but disconnected systems.
A click became a form lead, the lead entered a CRM, the sales process updated unevenly, and close data never returned to the ad platform.
The fix is to pull relevant data from each system, establish a performance baseline, set quarterly strategy and monthly forecasts, then push offline sales data back into Google and Meta, where results improved most.
The same disconnect later surfaced in quoting versus ERP, production numbers held in spreadsheets, and manual month-end reporting.
The closing question asks where a business still has to ask a person instead of a system.
For brands planning a campaign
Closed-loop reporting is the strongest wedge for a software vendor: the offline-conversion and source-of-truth angle is specific, demonstrable, and easy to illustrate in a joint piece. A collaboration could start with the measurement problem and expand to the wider systems stack, giving marketers a familiar entry point.
Answers “what does this person actually recommend doing?”
Read more
It is the most concrete, reusable advice in the set, written so a non-technical owner can apply it without buying anything.
Opens with a line heard on nearly every first call with a manufacturer: the systems do not talk to each other.
The post usually lists an ERP, CRM, quoting tool, QuickBooks, and a few spreadsheets.
Since nobody bought those systems as a set, a person fills the gap by retyping orders and reconciling reports.
That person is why the setup works—and why it stops when they are on vacation.
The recommendation is deliberately narrow: connect two systems only when someone is retyping data between them, when the same number lives in both and they disagree, or when a question cannot be answered because the link was never made.
If none of those conditions applies, leave it alone.
The post ends by asking who holds the systems together.
For brands planning a campaign
Offers a vendor-neutral framework for a co-branded checklist, webinar segment, or assessment tool, along with a low-commitment first step for prospects. The “leave it alone” rule builds credibility with technical buyers wary of integration pitches.
Answers “does this person show up in the manufacturing community?”
Read more
It shows the in-person side of the work and the language used with manufacturers, distinct from the sales-pitch register of the other posts.
A short recap of a Maryland MEP summit on technology improving manufacturing efficiency.
The post quotes Mike Kelleher’s opening line, “The systems don't talk to each other,” and notes that this is the same problem Janaitis Business Systems works on and a common theme when meeting people in manufacturing.
It thanks and names several attendees, and says the real value of these events is the connections made.
It closes by asking which single system in a business still does not talk to the rest.
For brands planning a campaign
Supports event-based or regional co-marketing with manufacturing associations and MEP-style organizations. A vendor could arrange a joint presence or speaking slot where the systems-disconnect message is already a shared complaint.
Small manufacturers, roughly $2M to $20M in revenue2
Fix the measurement before anything else1
A three-question test for when to connect two systems1
Presence in manufacturing communities1
Systems that don't talk to each other
The problem Janaitis returns to most often is a stack of software that was never bought as a set: an ERP chosen years ago, a CRM picked by sales, QuickBooks from accounting, a quoting tool, and spreadsheets to fill the gaps.
Read more
Each system solved one department's problem, so nobody owns the space between them, and the numbers disagree. Janaitis says they hear this on almost every first call with a manufacturer.
Open with the client's own phrasing, list what they already pay for, then name the ownership gap behind it.
For brands planning a campaign
The clearest entry point for an integration or manufacturing-software collaboration is a story about one broken handoff, not a general pitch for connected data. A vendor can supply the technical specifics while Janaitis contributes the first-call pattern and the language owners use.
Janaitis describes the same first move throughout their advertising years: pull relevant data from each system to see how each campaign was performing and which metrics connected to real profit.
Read more
That baseline then informed quarterly strategies and monthly forecasts. Connecting offline sales data back into Google and Meta was where performance improved most.
For brands planning a campaign
For a measurement, dashboard, or attribution vendor, this is the most usable thread: Janaitis argues that the fix starts with agreeing on numbers, and a collaboration could show the reporting layer that makes it possible.
The recurring human detail in the posts is the employee who retypes orders between systems, reconciles two reports by hand, and quietly becomes essential to the process.
Read more
Janaitis also describes month-end close as something most owners reconstruct rather than receive: three systems, three answers, one person in the middle. When that person takes vacation, the process stops.
For brands planning a campaign
This framing suits automation or operations vendors because it puts a labor cost on the problem, rather than a software price. A collaboration could follow one such role through a month-end close and show where the manual steps sit.
A three-question test for when to connect two systems
Rather than recommend full integration, Janaitis offers a narrow test for connecting two systems: someone is retyping data between them; the same number lives in both but they disagree; or there's a question nobody can answer because the link was never made.
Read more
If none of those conditions holds, leave the systems alone.
State the problem, list the conditions, and give the negative case equal weight to keep the recommendation credible.
The posts reject the obvious sales pitch: the fix usually isn't a new system, or connecting everything.
For brands planning a campaign
An integration vendor could use this test as a shared decision framework in a co-authored piece, giving buyers a place to start when one of the three conditions applies. It also gives the collaboration a reason not to sell in every case.
Janaitis describes six years of running ads and a conclusion that the ads were never the point: clients hired the agency for campaigns, but what moved their numbers was getting the CRM to talk to the ad platforms, building dashboards on source-of-truth figures, and fixing the operational bottleneck beneath marketing performance.
Read more
Janaitis Business Systems was built around that work and started development in March before launching. PPC Pitbulls continues as the same team doing the same advertising work.
For brands planning a campaign
The transition is a credibility story for a partner to build on: a systems offer that grew out of measured advertising results, not a rebrand. A collaboration could use the before-and-after of one measurement project to show why the broader systems work followed.
Small manufacturers, roughly $2M to $20M in revenue
The posts name the intended client plainly: small businesses, especially manufacturers, with revenue of $2M to $20M — the size of shop that cannot justify a full-time systems team.
Read more
Janaitis describes the offer as connecting software the manufacturer already owns into one set of numbers, then fixing whatever bottleneck those numbers expose.
Treat manufacturing as a stated target, not proven coverage. Ask for a documented client list before making claims about sector experience.
For brands planning a campaign
A vendor selling into that revenue band can target the same buyer and address the same constraint — no dedicated internal systems staff — making a joint piece easy to scope and easy for readers to recognise themselves in.
Janaitis writes about attending a Maryland MEP summit on how technology can improve manufacturing efficiency, quotes an opening remark about systems not talking to each other, and names people they met or caught up with there.
Read more
They frame the value of such events as the connections rather than the sessions.
Before describing an event collaboration, confirm whether Janaitis partnered with the organisation or anyone named; the posts establish attendance and participation only.
For brands planning a campaign
Event-based collaborations — a recap, a panel, or a joint write-up with another attendee — fit how Janaitis already works in public. The manufacturing-community angle gives a vendor a natural reason to join in.
The posts follow a consistent shape: a quoted line or blunt statement up front, a short explanation of the problem’s cause, a practical rule or observation, and a closing question for the reader, such as who is holding their systems together or where they still have to ask a person instead of a system.
Read more
Each post focuses on a specific operational problem, not general commentary.
Lead with a line the audience already says, explain the cause, offer one usable rule, then ask readers a question.
For brands planning a campaign
A co-authored post can follow the same pattern: the vendor supplies the specific technical case, Janaitis supplies the pattern and closing question, and the format keeps the collaboration from reading like an advertisement.
They announced the launch of Janaitis Business Systems, a firm that connects the software small manufacturers already own into one set of trusted numbers.
The posts present PPC Pitbulls as the advertising agency behind six years of campaign work and say it continues unchanged alongside the new firm, but don’t state Andy’s formal role there.
Google and Meta are the ad platforms they connect offline sales data into; Maryland MEP hosted the manufacturing summit they attended.
No client names, sponsors, affiliates or investors appear in the posts.
Janaitis Business Systems
Owned business
Andy announced the launch of Janaitis Business Systems, a firm “we” built and launched in March.
Read more
It connects the software a small manufacturer already owns into one set of numbers, then fixes the bottleneck those numbers expose. Andy says the target is the systems team a $2M to $20M shop can’t justify hiring full time.
The launch post says PPC Pitbulls “isn’t going anywhere”: the agency will keep the same team, work and results clients have counted on for six years, while the new firm takes those skills beyond marketing.
Read more
Andy writes as part of the agency—“our clients,” “we”—but doesn’t state whether they own it or work there. Ask about their formal role.
Andy attended a Maryland MEP summit on how technology can improve manufacturing efficiency and wrote about it, quoting an opening line—“The systems don't talk to each other”—that aligns with Janaitis Business Systems’ work.
Read more
The post describes attendance and community contact, not sponsorship or a client engagement.
Andy Janaitis writes about making business software and performance data work together.
Read more
In the Janaitis Business Systems launch post, they explain how advertising work led to a broader focus on connecting the systems small manufacturers already use.
A recurring idea: conflicting numbers can point to a broken connection, not necessarily poor performance.
They also look for the bottlenecks those connections reveal, from hand-reconciled reports to processes that depend on one person.
The posts are concise LinkedIn explanations, often ending with a diagnostic question for business owners and manufacturing leaders.
For a related angle on revenue measurement, Kris Hutchinson examines how teams can report different conversion rates because they count different outcomes; Janaitis explores the software links and operational processes behind reliable numbers.
For a people-and-process perspective, [J.
Abraham]( /creators/j-abraham/) asks what recurring work has no clear owner, rather than focusing on systems integration.
Renée S. offers a small-business finance angle, with practical guidance on bookkeeping services and accounting software rather than marketing data and connected operations.
Hutchinson writes about revenue measurement and gaps between marketing platforms and CRM reports.
Read more
In one example, a partner and client report different conversion rates because they count different outcomes. The advice: agree on definitions before trying to improve performance.
Hutchinson emphasizes measurement definitions and ownership. Janaitis connects the diagnosis to software and operational bottlenecks, especially at small manufacturers.
Renée S. shares practical small-business guidance on the systems behind reliable financial information, including what to ask a bookkeeper and how to assess accounting software.
Read more
Renée S. focuses on bookkeeping and accounting choices. Janaitis focuses on marketing measurement and connections among business systems.
Use Andy Janaitis when a campaign aimed at small manufacturers needs a small, topic-adjacent LinkedIn audience focused on small-manufacturer systems integration.
Read more
Their four posts, dated 2026-09-29 through 2026-10-09, speak directly to small manufacturers whose ERP, CRM, quoting tools, QuickBooks, and spreadsheets do not connect—and to the business problem of trusting one set of numbers.
That makes the audience a plausible fit for a systems-integration content collaboration with a B2B manufacturing software company.
The LinkedIn profile listed 1,919 followers on 2026-10-11.
Before booking, request LinkedIn audience demographics, if available, plus any audience survey covering job function, company size, manufacturing sector, and geography, and ask for recent post-level reach or engagement on comparable systems-integration topics.
The posts don’t mention a sponsorship policy, rate card, or disclosed paid partnership.
Read more
They do show how Andy Janaitis works with businesses.
Janaitis spent six years running PPC Pitbulls, an advertising practice, and in 2026 launched Janaitis Business Systems, a firm that connects the software a small manufacturer already owns — ERP, CRM, quoting tools, QuickBooks, spreadsheets — into one set of numbers the owner can trust, then fixes the bottleneck those numbers expose.
They describe the target client as a $2M–$20M manufacturer that cannot justify a full-time systems team, and state that PPC Pitbulls continues unchanged with the same team and work.
Their rule for when to connect two systems is narrow and operational: only when someone is retyping data between them, when the same number lives in both and they disagree, or when a question cannot be answered because the link was never made.
For a B2B manufacturing software company, the realistic shape of a collaboration is a working or referral relationship built around a specific integration or measurement problem, not a media placement.
Ask directly about commercial terms and the best route for partnership inquiries.
Good fit: A B2B manufacturing software company selling integration, automation, or reporting tools to small and midsize manufacturers and seeking a practitioner-led content collaboration on systems integration.
Read more
Need: Reach owners and operations leads at $2M–$20M manufacturers who already run an ERP, CRM, quoting tool, QuickBooks, and spreadsheets, and help them decide which systems are worth connecting.
Decision: Strong fit for a scoped collaboration.
Andy Janaitis runs Janaitis Business Systems, which targets exactly that buyer and describes the problem in the buyer's own language: systems that were never bought as a set, a person retyping orders between them, and month-end close reconstructed from three systems.
The most usable content asset is their three-question test for connecting two systems: someone is retyping data, the same number lives in both and they disagree, or a question cannot be answered because the link was never made.
That gives a vendor a concrete, vendor-neutral frame and a reason not to over-sell.
Reasons: They can speak to both the advertising measurement side and the operational systems side.
The posts show a consistent method: lead with a line the audience already says, explain the cause, give one usable rule, and close with a question.
The PPC Pitbulls background adds an offline-conversion and source-of-truth angle that many integration vendors cannot supply.
Risks and limits: The posts comprise four short LinkedIn posts, and the account listed 1,919 followers on 11 October 2026.
No sponsorship policy or rate card is published, so treat the commercial shape as a working or referral collaboration around a specific integration or measurement problem, not a media placement.
Confirm whether Janaitis Business Systems or PPC Pitbulls is speaking.
When to choose a specialist
Poor fit: A consumer or broad-reach software brand seeking a paid media placement, measured audience reach, or demographic targeting, or an enterprise software vendor selling to large-company IT and finance leaders.
Read more
Need: Launch a general-awareness campaign to a wide business audience, with guaranteed impressions, audience job-title and company-size targeting, and a fixed sponsorship package.
Decision: Poor fit.
The only audience figure available is a LinkedIn follower count of 1,919 observed on 11 October 2026.
There is no disclosed sponsorship offer, rate card, or paid partnership.
Before considering a campaign, ask for audience demographics, performance benchmarks, and confirmed commercial terms.
Reasons: Andy Janaitis's public work is short-form, problem-specific LinkedIn writing aimed at small manufacturers and the people who hold disconnected systems together.
It is not built as broad-reach media.
The posts also reject the obvious sales pitch, saying the fix usually is not a new system and is not connecting everything.
That posture conflicts with a campaign that needs a simple product-first call to action or a broad technology trend story.
A worked campaign example
Worked campaign angle for a collaboration aimed at small manufacturers who need help connecting systems:
Working title: 'Who is holding your systems together?'
Premise: The vendor and Andy Janaitis co-author one practical piece for small manufacturers who already own an ERP, CRM, quoting tool, QuickBooks, and spreadsheets.
The piece starts from the first-call pattern they describe: the manufacturer lists the systems, then says they do not talk to each other.
It explains why that happens — nobody bought them as a set, so a person fills the gap by retyping orders and reconciling reports.
It then applies their three-question test: connect two systems only when someone is retyping data between them, when the same number lives in both and they disagree, or when a question cannot be answered because the link was never made.
If none is true, leave it alone.
Vendor role: Supply the technical specifics for one common handoff, such as quoting to ERP or offline sales data back into the ad platforms, and describe what a clean connection looks like.
Janaitis's role: Supply the owner language, the first-call pattern, the three-question test, and the closing question.
Format: A co-authored LinkedIn post roughly the length they already use, plus a one-page diagnostic checklist the reader can complete without buying anything. The checklist should work outside the post and map to the three questions.
Call to action: Invite the reader to identify the one system that still does not talk to the rest, or the person who currently holds the systems together, and offer a short assessment. Confirm whether the collaboration is paid, unpaid, or referral-based before publication.
Why it should work for this creator: It uses their existing structure — a line the audience already says, a short explanation, a usable rule, and a reader question — and keeps the vendor in the role of technical proof rather than product pitch. It also fits the stated audience: small manufacturers that cannot justify a full-time systems team.
Measurement: Track qualified conversations or checklist completions from the piece rather than impressions.
Choose Renée S. over Andy Janaitis when the reader needs to choose and manage the accounting layer for a small manufacturer.
Read more
The posts offer a practical bookkeeper hiring checklist: what monthly bookkeeping includes, when close happens, how questions are handled, how records are protected, how the CPA works with the bookkeeper, and who performs and reviews the work.
They also compare QuickBooks with Freshbooks, Zoho Books, and Wave on cost and features.
That fits a vendor focused on financial software selection, bookkeeping service expectations, or accounting-software migration rather than systems integration.
The tradeoff is scope.
Renée S.'s posts stay focused on bookkeeping and accounting software.
They don’t show implementation work connecting an ERP, CRM, quoting tool, QuickBooks, and spreadsheets, or the manufacturing operations handoffs that Janaitis Business Systems addresses.
A vendor selling integration middleware would lose the operational integration frame.
Ask for evidence of manufacturing audience reach and commercial availability.
Abraham when the campaign focuses on owner capacity, delegation, and assigning ownership of recurring work rather than connecting software.
The posts describe clients asking for an executive assistant, lead follow-up, or someone to take tasks off the owner's plate, then identify the deeper issue: leads sit in the CRM with nobody owning follow-up, while expensive people spend the day on low-value glue work.
That fits a vendor selling integration as a way to stop the owner from being the human system between tools, or a collaboration focused on operations ownership.
The tradeoff is technical specificity.
J.
Abraham's posts cover staffing, ownership, and where growth problems hide inside operations; they don’t show ERP, CRM, quoting, QuickBooks, or production-data integration.
For a technical integration collaboration, Andy Janaitis offers more inspectable systems examples and a specific rule for when connecting two systems is worthwhile.
J.
Abraham would require the vendor to supply nearly all the technical proof.
Ask for evidence of manufacturing-specific experience.
Choose Kris Hutchinson when the buyer needs to reconcile revenue measurements: getting sales, CRM, ad platforms, and partners to agree on definitions before fixing performance.
Read more
The posts show a conversion-rate mismatch between a referral partner and the client — 80 to 85 percent versus 35 to 40 percent — because two honest numbers used different definitions of a conversion.
They argue that companies with reliable growth reconcile marketing numbers like books: someone owns them, checks them on a schedule, and chases down disagreements.
That fits a vendor selling reporting, attribution, or revenue-operations software better than a campaign about systems-integrator content.
The tradeoff is the operating layer.
Kris Hutchinson's posts focus on B2B marketing and sales data, conversion definitions, CRM reporting, and attribution.
They don’t cover quoting, ERP, production spreadsheets, or the small manufacturer's system stack.
For a campaign about manufacturing software, Andy Janaitis's first-call pattern and three-question test speak more directly to the buyer's environment.
Kris Hutchinson is a narrower measurement alternative, not a substitute for operations integration.
Andy Janaitis's four LinkedIn posts cover the launch of Janaitis Business Systems, the move from six years of advertising work into systems integration, the recurring complaint that a manufacturer's ERP, CRM, quoting tool, QuickBooks, and spreadsheets do not talk to each other, a three-question test for deciding when two systems are worth connecting, and a recap of a Maryland MEP manufacturing technology summit.
The posts do not carry publication dates, so the order of events is clear only where the posts themselves state it, such as the new firm being in development since March.
The LinkedIn account listed 1,919 followers on 11 October 2026.
The posts include no long-form articles, video, transcripts, named clients, case studies, audience demographics, or sponsorship terms.
They do not state claims about reach, client results, or commercial arrangements.
Comparisons with other creators include two posts each from Kris Hutchinson, J.
