Great answers to this point, and it is hard to argue with those who support a phased approach. However, be clear that a phased system will almost always cost more. Based on the size of the ERP deployment, you will almost certainly have turnover in critical roles during the implementation effort. However, new tools to communicate across a large team and manage the project tightly have emerged, which makes Big Bang a viable option. It just takes excellent communication, collaboration, and coordination to make it happen!
Yes, a planned phase approach is the best with proper formed transformation team from client implementing unit being guided from the implementation team to keep the project smooth going.
Senior Technical Director at National Informatics Center
Real User
Top 5
2023-01-25T05:06:48Z
Jan 25, 2023
I would prefer Big Bang if the process is streamlined and the users are well informed about the changes which would happen at zero-hour, and they are well trained with hands-on much before making use of the new ERP system.
However, there are very critical areas identified in the global system that cannot be handled in one go. It is always suggested to identify such areas to be handled in a phased manner to maintain business continuity.
A Big Bang approach involves implementing the entire ERP system all at once across all locations and departments, which can be more efficient and cost-effective in the long run, but also comes with a higher risk of disruptions and challenges.
A Phased approach, on the other hand, involves rolling out the ERP system in stages, starting with a pilot implementation in a specific location or department, and then gradually expanding to other areas. This approach can help minimize disruptions and allow for more targeted testing and fine-tuning, but may also be more expensive and time-consuming in the long run.
I will always prefer the Phased approach due to the lower risk.
I will never do a mass rollout because you will not be able to minimize the impact or know what is the issue. I have been doing this since 1982 and a stair-step approach is always the best. It might take a little longer but the rework is more by doing a global approach.
Great answers to this point, and it is hard to argue with those who support a phased approach. However, be clear that a phased system will almost always cost more. Based on the size of the ERP deployment, you will almost certainly have turnover in critical roles during the implementation effort. However, new tools to communicate across a large team and manage the project tightly have emerged, which makes Big Bang a viable option. It just takes excellent communication, collaboration, and coordination to make it happen!
Yes, a planned phase approach is the best with proper formed transformation team from client implementing unit being guided from the implementation team to keep the project smooth going.
I would say a planned and phased approach will ensure success, especially if it is a global roll-out.
I would prefer Big Bang if the process is streamlined and the users are well informed about the changes which would happen at zero-hour, and they are well trained with hands-on much before making use of the new ERP system.
However, there are very critical areas identified in the global system that cannot be handled in one go. It is always suggested to identify such areas to be handled in a phased manner to maintain business continuity.
A Big Bang approach involves implementing the entire ERP system all at once across all locations and departments, which can be more efficient and cost-effective in the long run, but also comes with a higher risk of disruptions and challenges.
A Phased approach, on the other hand, involves rolling out the ERP system in stages, starting with a pilot implementation in a specific location or department, and then gradually expanding to other areas. This approach can help minimize disruptions and allow for more targeted testing and fine-tuning, but may also be more expensive and time-consuming in the long run.
I will always prefer the Phased approach due to the lower risk.
I will never do a mass rollout because you will not be able to minimize the impact or know what is the issue. I have been doing this since 1982 and a stair-step approach is always the best. It might take a little longer but the rework is more by doing a global approach.