WHITE PAPER

The Transition Model for

Change Management on an
ERP Implementation

A white paper by Abré Pienaar, CEO, iPlan

A SYSPRO/iPlan Collaboration [Link]

[Link]
 WHITE PAPER
The Transition Model for Change
Management on an ERP Implementation

Contents
1. The Problem 2

2. The Wrong Way 3

2.1 Focussing on Individuals is the Wrong Objective 3
2.2 The Time Required for People to Change is Irrelevant 3
2.3 Transactional Users do not Determine ERP Success 4

3. A Different Model 5
3.1 Different Adoption Rates 5
3.2 Different Due Dates 6
3.3 Different Requirements 7
3.4 The Transition Model 8

4. Applicability 9

5. References 9

About SYSPRO 10

[Link]

V01 © 2016 SYSPRO. All Rights Reserved. All trademarks are recognized.
1
 The CEO and ERP Solutions
WHITE PAPER
The Transition Model for Change
Management on an ERP Implementation

A white paper by Abré Pienaar, CEO, iPlan

1. The Problem

When an organization implements an ERP system, the Eric Kimberling, a respected ERP implementer who
scope of activities include: sometimes serves as an expert witness in high profile
n Designing new business processes to determine court cases to apportion blame for failed ERP projects,
how the organization will use the new ERP system had this to say in April 2016 (1):
to do its work;
n Mobilizing people within their organizational “The “people” side of the project will make or break your
functions to enable them to use the new ERP project. If I had to pick one thing most likely to determine
system as intended; and ERP success or failure, my hands-down choice would be
change management. It’s the most important aspect of an
n Setting up the ERP system according to the
implementation, yet too many organizations fail miserably
business process designs. in this area. In fact, of the 30+ lawsuits that I have either
testified and/or written expert reports for, organizational
A literature review shows a common conclusion by change management and ERP training was a key failure
companies after completion of an ERP implementation is point in each and every one. Investments in training,
that they did not do enough on the people side; that they employee communications and other organizational
did not take it seriously enough; and/or that they did not change activities will yield exponential returns relative to
act timeously enough. the investment.”

The interesting thing is that this is not new. Software

suppliers, implementation consultants, client companies,
academic researchers – everybody – have agreed on the
critical importance of change management for more than
40 years of ERP – and still it is the most frequently cited
reason for failure of ERP implementations.

Why does everybody keep getting it wrong?

We propose in this white paper that change management

efforts during an ERP implementation fail in an alarmingly
high number of cases not because organizations don’t
consider it important – they do – but because they go
about it in the wrong way. It can be done right, but that
requires a different way. We propose our Transition model
later in this white paper as a better approach.

[Link]

V01 © 2016 SYSPRO. All Rights Reserved. All trademarks are recognized.
2
 WHITE PAPER
The Transition Model for Change Management
on an ERP Implementation Cont.

2. The Wrong Way

2.2. The Time Required for People to Change is
2.1. Focussing on Individuals is the Wrong Objective
Irrelevant
The literature abounds with change management
How long does it take to change? If you’re thinking
programs that apply psychological skills and tools
about people individually; it depends on the person.
gently and with empathy. Programs are customized
Trying to accommodate everyone to find their
for individuals. They seek to produce people who
own way in their own time on an ERP project is
will be valuable to the organization for the long run.
impossible.
In our 30 years’ experience implementing ERP, we
saw much of this thinking spilling over into how the
ERP implementation addresses people issues. In this white paper we propose that the time people
require to change is irrelevant; the schedule
that must be adhered to is dictated by the ERP
In this white paper we propose that this focus on
implementation.
individuals is wrong: instead the focus should be on
the organization; and that organizational change is
something completely different. The Change required on Go-live day of an ERP
implementation is sudden, brutal and without choice:
Success in an ERP implementation is achieved if
the organization as a whole becomes capable to Firstly, Go-live is a discontinuous change event
operate the new ERP system in an improved way. – it happens abruptly. An ERP implementation
This does not require 100% of the people; only a nowadays switches off the old system and with it the
sufficient number in the right places. Furthermore, old ways of working at the end of one working day;
if the focus is on the organization and not on the and then immediately switches on the new system
individuals; casualties – individuals who do not with the new ways of working the next working day.
adapt timeously to the new ERP system – can There is no opportunity for “baby-steps first”.
be accepted and even expected and planned for
without significantly affecting the success of the Secondly, the Go-live date is inflexible. It is usually
organization. dictated by business considerations such as a
financial year-end or a low point in the seasonality
This somewhat callous acceptance of and planning of the business cycle; by budget constraints such
for casualties is anathema to the traditional social as the contractual departure date of the consulting
sciences professionals who consider every individual team; and by the date at which the system is ready
an opportunity. Their individualistic approach to to go. If the people aren’t ready on that date, it is a
change management in ERP implementations courageous call – and one seldom made – to delay
misses the point. the Go-live.

On Go-live day the people in the organization are

going to be working on a new system regardless
of whether they are ready or not. But if you Go-
live and your people are not ready, there is a huge
risk that the ERP implementation will fail, and fail
with dire consequences. The better strategy is to
do whatever is necessary to ensure that when the
planned Go-live date rolls by, people are ready.

Too often setting up change management for an

ERP implementation is flavoured like an HR effort
to “look after the people side” and have lengthy time
lines determined by the time people need to accept
change at their own pace. It does not work. Even
excellent people-results that are achieved after the
ERP due dates are irrelevant as far as the ERP
implementation is concerned.
[Link]

V01 © 2016 SYSPRO. All Rights Reserved. All trademarks are recognized.
3
 WHITE PAPER
The Transition Model for Change Management
on an ERP Implementation Cont.

2.3. Transactional Users do not Determine ERP

Success
“Transactional users” throughout the organization But of all the role players – the project sponsor, the
will process transactions on the new ERP system software vendor, the implementation consultants,
from Go-live day onwards so they obviously have even the Transactional users – the Management
to be trained. Superficially, one should then not be users is the one group that is going to lose something
surprised that ERP implementations allocate most very significant with the ERP implementation: the old
of their change management time, effort and budget system which they know intimately. Management
on training Transactional users shortly before Go- users as individuals often owe much of their current
live. This is not the route to ERP success. positions and their power in the organization to their
knowledge of how to run the business using the old
In this white paper we propose that it is not the system’s tried and tested mechanisms, procedures,
Transactional users but rather the Management reports and screens. If you expect them to abandon
users, Superusers and Process Owners who all of that to enthusiastically take up the new ERP
determine ERP success or failure. system you had better make a good case.

Transactional Users: “Make a good case” requires much more than a

speech and then assuming all of the managers – all
This does not mean that the transactional users
of them – will “get with the program” on their own
should not be trained or that it does not require a
initiative. Management users who keep harking back
lot of work. To the contrary: the most technically
to the old system instead of motivating and leading
advanced ERP system will fail if the Transactional
their people into the new, lead directly to ERP failure.
users are unable to process transactions correctly
One single individual – say the Operations Manager
and timeously to ensure that the data in the system
– with a sullen and resentful attitude towards the
is accurate and up to date. But at best, Transactional
new system can sink everything. You have to make
users prevent things from going wrong; and at worst,
this group part of the change management program;
they are expendable: if a particular person is unable
and focus a very important part of the program on
to transact adequately on the new ERP system,
them specifically.
they can and should be replaced by someone else
who can.
Superusers and Process Owners:
Management Users: Superusers are actually a subset of the Transactional
users; and the Process Owners are a subset of the
However, the reason the organization is
Management users. But together, they shoulder
implementing a new ERP system in the first
a tremendous responsibility: they work with the
place, is because there are business benefits to
consulting team of system experts to design the
be had. The objectives may be better or cheaper
new to-be business process. After Blueprint sign-
ways to run the organization using the new ERP
off, they serve as change agents and when the
system, and often to do new things not possible
consulting team departs at the end of the project
with the previous system. Modern ERP systems
they serve as the custodians of the new way of
also empower mangers to work collaboratively to
working.
unlock the really big wins which usually lie in cross-
functional integration and alignment.
This target group should be the very best in
the organization; and their selection and the
subsequent investment in equipping them with skills
and expertise should be very high on the change
management agenda.

An ERP change management initiative that targets

the Transactional users and considers training
its main activity, is oblivious of the real risks and
rewards of an ERP system.

[Link]

V01 © 2016 SYSPRO. All Rights Reserved. All trademarks are recognized.
4
 WHITE PAPER
The Transition Model for Change Management
on an ERP Implementation Cont.

3. A Different Model

We propose the following as reasons why change Our Transition model adapt this as follows:
management often go wrong on ERP implementations:
Innovators
n Confusing organizational change with changing
We recognize the innovators as the individuals
individuals;
responsible for the decision to implement a new
n Failure to meet target dates required by the ERP
ERP system. The group includes the Project
implementation; and Sponsor and Internal Project Manager.
n Neglecting Management users, Superusers and
Process Owners to train Transactional users. Early Adaptors
The Superusers and Process Owners represent
In this white paper we propose a different model, which all the different functions of the organization. Their
we call the “Transition” model because the objective is to work to design and approve the new business
transition the organization as an entity through the Go-live processes is usually the first major deliverable of
event onto the new ERP system: the ERP implementation. The people assigned to
be Superusers and Process Owners should be
3.1. Different Adoption Rates individuals naturally inclined to be early adaptors;
or at least motivated for this ERP implementation to
The objective is to transition the organization from
accept that role.
the old to the new; but you still work with people…

Early Majority
Our Transition model recognizes that different
groups of people adopt new technology earlier or As far as the ERP implementation is concerned,
later than others depending on internal aptitude the Management users of the organization are
and external motivation. This concept was originally expected to prepare their subordinates and lead
published by Everett Rogers in 1962 (2). The (much them through the transition; which requires an early
embellished) concept classifies target populations majority (or early adopter or innovator) inclination.
into five groups: “innovators”, “early adaptors”, This is a problem; because the natural inclination
“early majority”, “late majority” and “laggards” of at least some of these managers will be to hang
according to their timing and motivation for adopting back and “see how it goes” before committing – a
new products or technology. “late majority” characteristic. Our Transition model
emphasizes the work to be done to mobilize all of the
managers – regardless of their natural inclination –
in time to lead their people through the change.

Early Majority Late Majority

The late majority are the Transactional users who
Late Majority
Early Adopters will actually work on the new ERP system once you
Go-live – and you only need them on-board just in
Laggards time for Go-live. Some people who are intended to
Innovators transact on the system will be Superusers already
included earlier. Some people may be deliberately
intended to only transact on the system sometime
after Go-live – and in terms of the Transition model
we would then group them under the “laggards”.

[Link]

V01 © 2016 SYSPRO. All Rights Reserved. All trademarks are recognized.
5
 WHITE PAPER
The Transition Model for Change Management
on an ERP Implementation Cont.

3.2. Different Due Dates Blueprint Sign-Off

The adoption curve is usually applied to categorize The Blueprint sign-off completes the work on the To-
people’s natural inclination to adopt new technology Be Business Process Blueprint; after this it is too
earlier or later than their peers; but our Transition late to significantly influence the business processes
model is firmly focussed on the transition of the dimension. Thus identification and assignment of
organization; and thus subordinates all other Superusers and Process Owners, their education
schedules to this time line. and training, assessment of their ERP capabilities;
and corrective action must all be completed before
We refer to our own Dimensions of Freedom Blueprint sign-off.
model, published in 2008 in our book “Thinking
about ERP” (3) for a framework to think about Casualties cannot be allowed to stay in the group
the ERP implementation as activities planned because the Superusers and Process Owners make
and scheduled in three “dimensions”: “business decisions on behalf of their organizational functions
processes” activities such as design workshops that will determine how the organization will work for
and process approval sign-offs; “systems and data” years to come. Anyone not making the grade must
activities such as configuration of the new ERP be switched out for a different assignee before the
system and preparation of master data; and “people Blueprint sign-off due date.
organization” activities such as designating people
for specific roles and training courses to enable User Acceptance
them to fulfil those roles.
At User Acceptance the configuration work on the
new ERP system is complete. Any Management
These are not sequential activities. Our Transition Users who at this point do not yet understand what
model confirms the ERP implementation time line the switch to the new ERP system entails, cannot
as the point of convergence of all the activities in do their job preparing their specific organizational
all three dimensions. The key due dates of an ERP functions for the coming Go-live.
implementation are, in sequence:
1. The Blueprint sign-off of the to-be business Such casualties among the Management users are
process designs; to be expected and planned for; but not accepted.
2. User Acceptance of the way the new ERP As a group of people, they will include individuals
system had been set up; and whose natural inclination fall into all five of Everett
3. Go-live. Ross’ adoption curve categories. A natural inclination
towards being an innovator or early adopter is an
opportunity; early majority with a due date of User
Acceptance is where one wants them to be; but
some of them will by nature be late majority and
laggards. The Transition model argues that the ERP
implementation cannot afford the luxury of allowing
these Management users to adapt at their own pace
according to their own inclination to the new system.
Therefor proactive plans for intervention must be
put in place for them to meet the User Acceptance
due date.

Go-Live
At Go-live all the Transactional Users designated
to start transacting on the new system must have
been trained on all the transactions they are
allocated to process; must have been assessed to
be capable of doing so effectively and efficiently;
and must have been assigned system privileges to
allow them to do such processing on the new ERP
system.

[Link]

V01 © 2016 SYSPRO. All Rights Reserved. All trademarks are recognized.
6
 WHITE PAPER
The Transition Model for Change Management
on an ERP Implementation Cont.

Organizations may decide to deliberately exclude Not everybody needs everything. Our Transition
some eventual Transactional users from Go- model differentiates the key requirements as follows:
live. This strategy shortens the implementation
time for the ERP system, which usually reduces The skill and ingenuity applied by the Superusers
costs, but going live without the full complement and Process Owners directly correlate with the
of Transactional users carry significant business business benefits the organization can expect
risk (such as inability to trade or inability to invoice from the ERP implementation. They require
immediately after Go-live). understanding of ERP principles and best practices
as well as understanding the transaction capability
For the Transactional users intended to process of the specific ERP System in order to do their work
transaction at Go-live, experience also shows it is of designing the To-Be Business Blueprint, to serve
unrealistic to expect a 100% success rate. There as change agents for the Management users and
will be casualties: people whose system privileges Transactional users, and to be the future custodians
must be suspended for Go-live because assessment of the ERP system.
shows them not yet capable to fulfil their role as
Transactional users to the required standard. For the Management Users the key requirement is
to understand the Business Processes applicable
As with people deliberately excluded from Go-live, to their organizational function. This understanding
these casualties are not a problem for the Transition must also encompass how and why the new differs
model provided the qualified Transactional users from the old and an appreciation of the magnitude
in each and every specific organizational function of the change that will happen in their area on Go-
are sufficient for the organization to successfully live day. Teaching them how to process transactions
transition on Go-live day. in their function is useful because they are expected
to be able to determine if these transactions were
3.3. Different Requirements processed accurately and timeously; but this is a
means to a different end. They do need to be able
For the organization to successfully transition
to view results on screens and be able to select and
from the old to the new; as an entity it needs to be
print reports; so at least some user interface skills
motivated to make the transition, understand the
are required.
change required, and have the ability to make it
happen.
For the Transactional Users the key requirement
is the capability to process Transactions – they
Modern best practices address these requirements
must know which transactions they have to process,
through education courses teaching the principles
when they have to do it, and how they have to do it.
and practices of ERP; software vendors showcasing
Teaching them to-be business processes – why they
their system capabilities with system navigation and
have to do these transactions in this way – is useful,
training courses; to-be business process diagrams
but primarily as a teaching technique because it
and narratives that detail the sequence of events that
facilitates learning of the “which, when and how”:
must be followed to achieve the desired business
again it is a means to a different end.
outcomes; transaction training that teaches the
user interface to the system; and a wide range of
communication mechanisms.

[Link]

V01 © 2016 SYSPRO. All Rights Reserved. All trademarks are recognized.
7
 WHITE PAPER
The Transition Model for Change Management
on an ERP Implementation Cont.

3.4. The Transition Model

We graphically summarize the essential elements
of the Transition model as follows:
Go-live

e
lin
e
tim
n
tio
ta
en
em
pl
im
User acceptance

P
ER

Blueprint sign-off

ERP Business Transactions

and System Processes
Superusers & Management users Transactional users
Process owners

Transition

In keeping with our position that the ERP We also omit the “innovators”, typically the Project
implementation time line dictates the schedule for Sponsor and the Internal Project Manager because
work on the People Organization dimension, we they come on board before the start of the ERP
omit from the above graphic the “laggards” and implementation. If, however, any deliberate
the work needed to train them up after Go-live to intervention is required for them during the ERP
be Transactional users, including re-training of project, it is usually similar to and easily included
dropouts. In practice, at least the short term work with the program activities for Superusers and
in the immediate aftermath of Go-live is usually Process Owners.
included in the change management program. This
does not change the fundamental principle of the
Transition model, though: The people organization
dimension of the ERP implementation stand or fall
by what happens on Go-live day.

[Link]

V01 © 2016 SYSPRO. All Rights Reserved. All trademarks are recognized.
8
 WHITE PAPER
The Transition Model for Change Management
on an ERP Implementation Cont.

4. Applicability

We emphasize that our Transition model is intended to On the other hand, these descriptors apply to a wide
be applicable to only a sub-set of all situations requiring variety of applications beside ERP.
change management; specifically:
n The organization is required to transition through a For example, the Transition model is also applicable in the
change in business system; implementation of a new Warehouse Management System
n There are changes in the business processes; by (WMS) and warehouse transitions where new owners take
design or as a result of the system change; and over existing staff and move them onto their own WMS on
n The change in system and business processes is
a Go-live day.
scheduled as a single discontinuous event.
There are others.

5. References

1. Kimberling, Eric. Panorama [Link]. [Online] 6 April 2016. [Link]

investigating-an-erp-failure.
2. Rogers, Everett. Diffusion of Innovations. Diffusion of Innovations. New York : The Free Press, 1962.
3. Pienaar, A; et al. Thinking about ERP. Pretoria : iPlan Industrial Engineers, 2008.

[Link]

V01 © 2016 SYSPRO. All Rights Reserved. All trademarks are recognized.
9
 WHITE PAPER

Your Global ERP Partner

About SYSPRO
SYSPRO software is an award-winning, best-of-breed Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software solution for cost-
effective on-premise and cloud-based utilization. Industry analysts rank SYSPRO software among the finest, best-
in-class enterprise resource planning solutions in the world. SYSPRO software’s powerful features, simplicity of use,
scalability, information visibility, analytic/reporting capabilities, business process and rapid deployment methodology
are unmatched in its sector.

SYSPRO, formed in 1978, has earned the trust of thousands of companies globally. SYSPRO’s ability to grow with its
customers and its adherence to developing technology based on the needs of customers is why SYSPRO enjoys one
of the highest customer retention rates in the industry.

Africa & the Middle East USA & Americas Canada

SYSPRO Africa SYSPRO USA and Americas SYSPRO Canada
Block A 959 South Coast Drive 4400 Dominion Street
Sunninghill Place Suite 100 Suite 215
9 Simba Road Costa Mesa Burnaby (Vancouver)
Sunninghill California British Columbia
Johannesburg 92626 Canada
2191 USA V5G 4G3
South Africa Tel: +1 (714) 437 1000 Tel: +1 (604) 451 8889
Tel: +27 (0) 11 461 1000 Toll free: +1 800 369 8649 Toll free: +1 888 259 6666
Email: info@[Link] Email: info@[Link] Email: info@[Link]

UK & Europe Asia Pacific

SYSPRO Europe SYSPRO Oceania SYSPRO Asia
Baltimore House Suite 1102, Level 11 8 Eu Tong Sen Street
50 Kansas Avenue 201 Miller Street #19-91 The Central
Salford Quays North Sydney NSW 2060 Singapore
Manchester Australia 059818
United Kingdom Tel: +61 (2) 9870 5555 Tel: +65 6256 1921
M50 2GL Toll free: +1 300 882 311 E-mail: info@[Link]
Tel: +44 161 876 4498 Email: info@[Link]
Email: info@[Link]

[Link]

V01 © 2016 SYSPRO. All Rights Reserved. All trademarks are recognized.
10