There are many factors driving organisations to upgrade or change their enterprise resource planning (ERP) solutions. The attraction of moving to cloud-based subscription services; lowering costs of implementation and support, or the potential to transform the organisation and ways of working through automation and digital innovation can be very appealing when managing structural financial pressures. Alternatively, the end of mainstream support for your legacy systems may be a more stress-inducing call to action.
Whatever the drivers of change are for your organisation, there are several factors which, as a programme leader, you can quickly address to setup your implementation for success.
How we translate strategy into action matters. Often how we define the programme and set up for implementation doesn't align with our original strategic intent.
It's all too common for programmes with a transformational agenda and aspirational business case to be positioned, for example, as an IT or finance initiative when it comes to implementation. Evidence suggests this change in emphasis can quickly alter behaviours around a programme, affecting accountability and engagement, de-prioritising the effort for some stakeholders, and reducing confidence in the outcome. Truly cross-functional programmes benefit from collective sponsorship and independent programme management which recognises the whole organisation as its customer.
Equally, while we want to create momentum with a positive call to action, it's important to be realistic about what a programme is setting out to achieve. The potential of digital technologies and the 'Amazon Effect' we have experienced at home, quickly translates into heightened expectations of automation and enhanced user experience. If that’s not what your programme is about, avoid setting expectations among stakeholders which are never going to be met.
A desire to move at pace will often see programmes move from business case to mobilisation with, at best, a high-level view of the future operating model and how that translates into business requirements. Once you engage your delivery partners this can lead to solution design being hampered by a limited understanding of business needs, with requirements being captured within functional siloes. Consequently, design ends up being too closely aligned to your current ways of working, failing to grasp the potential of integrated end-to-end solutions. This can in turn encourage increased levels of customisation, adding complexity and risk both for the programme and post go-live support.
Investment of time up front, to define your future operating model and communicate what that means for services, functions, and ways of working can avoid significant complications and delays as the programme progresses. It also has an important role in ensuring consistency and continuity in longer programmes, providing a clear basis for design decisions when stakeholders move on or wider organisational priorities change.
Programme reporting often fails to provide the transparency needed to meaningfully inform decision makers or enable adequate scrutiny. This is particularly apparent in reporting to senior stakeholders outside the programme, who are responsible for a large portfolio and require immediate visibility – reporting can often become too high-level and lose focus.
While it's important to avoid jargon, reporting needs to be specific, directing stakeholders to the most relevant issues. Too often it focuses on activity rather than progress against milestones and realising benefits. The reporting of programme risks, particularly when aggregated for senior stakeholders often loses its meaning. Risks become couched in increasingly broad terms or indecipherable programme language with the real implications, the 'so what' for the organisation, getting lost. Senior stakeholders end up trying to work out what the real issues are, or taking undue comfort from the fact there's a process, rather than ensuring effective action is being taken to mitigate real risks to the organisation.
Beyond the quality of reporting, it's valuable to find additional channels to aid senior stakeholders' understanding of the programme; for example, engagement with the programme and functional teams involved in delivery, or accessing independent expertise to bring additional, objective scrutiny to the process at key stages.
These observations all add up to some key actions you can take to make the implementation of your ERP smoother.
Firstly, you need to plan the transition from implementation to business as usual operations as thoroughly as any other aspect of the programme. Whether it's a single or phased implementation, you need to be clear about the functionality being delivered and how ongoing development will be supported.
Resource the immediate post-go live, hyper-care period with a strong blend of internal and external resources to ensure you have the capacity and capability to deal with a peak in demand for support while building your in-house knowledge and skills.
Exiting hyper care, transferring your solution from the programme team to ongoing support and maintenance, isn't a simple milestone or date in your plan, it's a critical programme gateway. The decision must form part of your programme and corporate governance and be based upon exit criteria that fully considers the completeness of programme deliverables and the organisation's ability to provide ongoing support and maintenance.
These issues are perhaps more subtle considerations within the 'how' of delivering your programme, which can get lost in the effort and energy of delivery. But when you get them right, they can help to navigate your organisation through the implementation minefield to deliver a successful outcome.
For more insight and guidance, get in touch with Neal Dempsey.
Sign up to get the latest role, industry or technical updates by email
