4. No Scope Verification

Symptoms: I have seen acrimonious and bitter relationships between the ERP implementation partner and the client over the implemented ERP solution. These contentious relationships between client and implementation partner stem from the fact that the client feels that the implemented ERP solution does not cater to their business needs based on the documented scope, and the end users cannot perform tasks that were easily executed within the legacy systems.  

The problem is compounded when the client report defects, short comings and bugs against the ERP system that were not part of the scope or documented via a requirement. When the ERP integration partner labels the end user’s reported defects and problems as enhancements rather than problems with the implemented ERP solution the relationship between the implementation partner and the client takes a turn for the worse.  

Suggestions: Implement a system of accountability, sign offs and hand offs for deliverables and work products. A client sign off implies acceptance and satisfaction with the deliverable. Disagreements over deliverables and verified requirements need to be documented and resolved.  

I have been in situations where after the SAP implementation partner delivers functionality per the agreed upon software requirements, the go-no go decision is made with support from the client and the system is deployed into production only to have the client complain that the system does not meet its needs without specific and concrete evidence. Client statements such as “the system does not do x”, “the system is not as good as our legacy system”, “the system is too complex”, etc are vague and meaningless. The client needs to provide specific examples as to why the delivered solution does not conform to its business needs and requirements before providing sign-offs or permitting the system to go-live.  

The implementation partner and client need to agree on the exit criteria before the testing phases are finalized and on the results from the User Acceptance Test (UAT). It is highly recommended that the UAT participants be permitted to actually execute hands-on a subset of the previously executed integration test scenarios. When the UAT participants accept the results from the UAT phase they are in fact validating and verifying the final solution. The UAT is a suitable opportunity to bring up perceived concerns and problems with the solution before it’s moved into production. Many companies do not place enough emphasis on UAT and rather rely on system demos to prove that the solution in fact meets user requirements without allowing the actual end users to interact with the system.