Too much dependability on consultant can make the team more redundant. Most ERP Software implementation projects involve consultants, for the expertise, best practices, and additional resources they bring. While their outside experience is definitely helpful for a project, there is a risk that the company can become over-reliant on the consultants. The company needs to maintain control over the key business decisions, hold the consultants accountable, and have an explicit plan to transfer the knowledge from the consultants to the internal employees when the project is winding down.
This aspect makes it or breaks it for an ERPNext tool. Most companies these days understand that customizing their ERP system adds risk, time, and cost to the project. In fact, customizations, along with interfaces and data conversion, are the main areas of technical risk in ERP implementations. Perhaps more surprising is that in a recent survey, less than 20% of respondents implemented their ERP system with little or no customization. Despite the risk and expense of customizations, most companies find it enormously difficult to control the project scope by turning down customizations. Customizations always start out small but incrementally grow to become the technical challenges that derail these projects. Few ERP implementations have zero customizations, but take a very firm line on justifying even the smallest ones and manage them tightly.
Experience makes a lot of difference. The typical lifespan an ERP system within an organization is 10 to 12 years. With that in mind, most employees in a company have been through one or two ERP implementations in their career. Just as you would not be comfortable with a surgeon as their first or second patient, the leaders of your CRM Software project, both internal and external, need to have experience implementing your specific chosen system several times. This is one of the major benefits to working closely with an outside consultant or directly with the software vendor.
It should be treated as rectifying stage. When schedules get tight, reducing the number and depth of test cycles is one of the first areas that often get cut. The purpose of testing in a field service management software project is not to see if the software works. The purpose is to see if the system meets your business needs and produces the output you need. Reducing testing may not leave defects undiscovered, but it certainly increases the risk the ERP system will be missing important functions or not be well accepted by end users.
The management shouldn’t hurry to start using the tool without adequate training to users. Today’s modern ERP systems are being used by more and more personnel within a company. Beyond the Finance and Accounting departments, modern systems also cover procurement, supply chain functions, compliance, customer relationships, sales, and much more. If the system includes human resources or expense reporting, then essentially all employees use the system. Training hundreds or thousands of users, to the right depth, at just the right time, is no easy task. Leaving training to a small phase at the end of the project makes it very difficult for users to get the training they need to understand the system and have a positive first impression at the rollout.
job card software are the nervous system of a company. then doing an ERP implementation is like brain surgery: only to be attempted if there is a really good reason and not to soon be repeated. Unfortunately, ERP implementation projects often fall victim to some of the same problems of any large, complex project. However, there are some repeatable problems that good planning early in a project can work to avoid.
If you are considering implementing manufacturing software for your business and want to avoid these common pitfalls, get in touch.
+ There are no comments
Add yours