An introduction blog series to why SAP® PM Software Implementation failures and how to avoid them
You only need to search the web and talk to individuals at organizations who implemented a CMMS or EAM system to realize that there are many “failed” system implementations. Some companies simply fail with their implementation altogether, while others go-live and still deem the implementation a failure. Corporate might claim victory, while the end-users struggle. It is estimated that merely 10 to 20% of implementations are labeled as successful. If we can understand the causes of the failures, then we can design improved implementation methodologies and corrective actions, and enhance the overall quality and success level of implementations.
In part, the implementation failures are due to the implementation methodologies that are followed, and not because of the system itself.
It is estimated that merely 10 to 20% of implementations are labeled as successful.
Implementation methods are structured to go-live within the shortest possible amount of time, and are highly focused on system functionality and cost. In general, implementation methodologies contradict themselves, stating that the core is business process driven, which might be true in design and intention, but is very seldom part of the final implementation outcome.
Then when the system is ready to go live (productive), system users are trained to know just enough to scrape by, with limited work process and system knowledge. And as a result users revert back to the “previously used” work processes and personal methods (what they know). The result is inevitable. The struggling and frustrated user community labels the implementation “failure”. In short, the mistake is made when the system is delivered with the absolute minimum amount of training and far too little time is allowed for information absorption and implementation maturity. At that point it is actually insignificant that the system and work process are incomplete and may not integrate, because the users will never learn half of what is already delivered.
Another part contributing to the “failure” has to do with the “experience” composite of career implementers. They are extremely IT focused, and consist of a mix of experienced and inexperience consultants, who in general, do not know much about Maintenance and Reliability best-practices. There are exceptions, but those are few and far between. The only way to get a system implemented that is best-practice and work process driven, is to get an implementation partner that has experience of all aspects, not just the system. They need to be well versed in implementing:
In general people and organizations have become very “instant gratification” oriented, while also being sensitive to cost, or should I say price. Everything must be realized quickly, and at the lowest possible price tag. Quality or a positive constructive outcome seems to have taken the backseat.
When I shop, whether for business solutions or personal items, I always ask myself a few questions to ensure the product, services or item I am buying will give me what I expect. It does not help I buy for the sake of price, and then it costs more in the long run to realize the expected outcome, because I have to replace or repair the item several times over. We have to be conscious and understand there is between the price tag and the longer-term cost.
When implementing systems we have a similar consideration, we have to understand that if implementation outcomes are compromised for the sake of cutting short the implementation, then our realized efficiencies and effectiveness will be reduced, yielding lower profits, higher operating expenses, more environmental and safety issues, lower RIO or ROIC, just to mention a few considerations.
Here is a list of typical price tag mistakes that are made during implementations:
Thank you for reading! Think and Act with Success.
A Maintenance & Reliability Perspective by Quadro Solutions, authored by Daniel Van Wyk