Good, Fast or Cheap
System implementation is usually carried out in several main phases: analysis, design, construction, and deployment. Each phase contains a wide range of activities that must be executed by the company in close collaboration with the chosen vendor or implementation partner. Whether the implementation becomes a success, and whether it can be completed with an appropriate use of internal and external resources, depends on many parameters.
Companies have many levers to pull, but it is essential that they decide on their implementation strategy from the outset. This strategy should primarily reflect whether the organization wants the system implemented:
- Fast
- Cheap
- Good
Companies often want all three at once, but it is rarely possible to achieve more than two of these strategies simultaneously. “Fast” means implementing the system within a relatively short timeframe — often six to nine months, sometimes even faster. “Cheap” means relying on very few external resources, while “good” means that the new system delivers business value in several areas.
If the company wants the implementation done “fast and cheap,” it often results in an implementation that lacks the necessary quality and becomes heavily technically focused. It is typically based on existing work processes, meaning the company does not achieve its business objectives.
“Fast and good” means the company completes the project within a relatively short timeframe. In contrast to “fast and cheap,” this approach involves buying substantial support throughout the project. This may include consultants who can lead the project, as well as consultants with the necessary application and technical expertise. They ensure that the company properly analyzes and designs the system and then builds and tests it, giving confidence that the go-live system meets the company’s needs.
Finally, there are projects carried out “cheap and good.” Here, companies achieve the desired business benefits while staying within a reasonable financial framework. However, they often compromise on time, and such projects can sometimes stretch over several years.
Of course, there are also examples of projects completed “poorly, slowly, and expensively.” One company, which wishes to remain anonymous, implemented one of the major ERP solutions over 2½ years. The company had set a wide range of business objectives, but these have still not been realized, significantly extending the expected payback period of about three years. The total project cost was more than 50 million DKK, of which more than 40 million were implementation costs.
