Skip to content

Context and Problem

Context

The target audience already has data, but it is scattered across paper journals, Excel, Word/PDF, Access/FileMaker, local databases, legacy desktop systems, and partially across specialized solutions. The project therefore does not sell "tracking from scratch"; it sells a transition from a chaotic, incomparable, and poorly publishable state into a structured system.

For botanical gardens, a rough estimate is: Excel remains the main operational layer for 35–50%, paper is significant for 10–25%, local databases and desktop systems for 20–30%, modern web/cloud systems for 5–15%. Specialized systems such as IrisBG, BG-BASE, BRAHMS, and Hortis serve the professional upper market but do not dominate globally.

BGCI is not a direct competitor as an operational collection management system. BGCI matters as a global reference and aggregation layer: GardenSearch shows organizations, PlantSearch aggregates taxon-level data from collections. But it does not replace day-to-day tracking of specimens, movements, losses, photos, GIS, QR codes, internal roles, import, and reporting.

The picture varies by segment. Private collectors mostly use Excel, Google Sheets, paper, Notion/Airtable, or simple hobby tools. Plant breeders track crosses, seedlings, lines, and trials, often in Excel or internal databases. Cultivar registrars work with spreadsheets, PDFs, local databases, and public registers. Museums are more digitized in preserved collections, but living collections are often tracked similarly to botanical gardens. Nurseries more often have ERP/web tracking, but their focus is warehouse, sales, and batches—not a scientific collection.

The main market pain is data incomparability. In Excel, the same taxon may be recorded in Latin, with author, without author, in Russian, via a synonym, with a typo, or under an old name. Automatic exchange, search, reporting, and collection comparison are therefore nearly impossible without a unified taxon layer.

Problem

Botanical collections are often maintained in disconnected spreadsheets, local databases, and institution-specific documents. This makes it difficult to:

  • keep plant records consistent;
  • link plants to verified scientific taxonomy;
  • track plant locations and changes in their condition;
  • manage access across departments and organizations;
  • import historical data safely;
  • publish selected collection data publicly;
  • exchange information between institutions and collectors (seed exchange to support biodiversity).

Botanical SaaS addresses this as a unified operational platform for living plant collections.