Published
Author
It is important to highlight the projects within ERP systems that have been and are successful. And through this both provide inspiration and spread knowledge about what is required in preparation, planning, and structure for a project to be successful. Many projects that have encountered difficulties could have avoided this through a different approach before and during the project's execution.
But it is equally important to dare and have the strength to talk about the projects that do not go well. That is, those projects that end up in such difficult situations that the parties cannot manage the situation. And where it eventually lands in a legal process and, in the worst case, even ends up in court.
In our role as independent experts, we have over the years been involved in several processes (both outside and in court) where the customer and vendor have not been able to resolve the situation on their own. Sometimes it is simply about personal chemistry that does not align between the parties. But more often than not, the parties have dug in their positions. A stance so firmly cemented that no one yields. And to this, the financial aspect and risk have become so great that the consequences are significant.
Getting insight into these projects and following the process is both painful and instructive. Painful from the perspective that a significant injury has occurred to one or both parties as a result of a failed project. And instructive from the perspective that the legal process's task is to clarify the reasons for the failure and based on this make judgments.
Based on practical experience from many such processes, the situation can be simply summarised as rarely being a matter of one party having failed. It is usually a long series of events leading up to this. Both parties have gradually acted in ways that cause the project to fall outside the contract's governing principles. And when this happens, it also becomes difficult to apply the contract to resolve the problems.
Some common examples of the "long series of events" are that the parties have failed in various ways. For instance, they may have lacked discipline in conducting and carefully documenting meetings. It may also involve “fixing” deviations a bit on the fly without actually documenting and deciding on them. Another common reason is that the tests do not meet quality standards and are not documented properly, or milestones are passed without meeting agreed criteria, and so on. The list can go on. In everyday life, one might consider a “pragmatic” approach good because it solves many daily occurrences. But from a legal perspective in a court review, pragmatic handling is the worst possible approach.
It is a challenge in all projects to maintain discipline regarding formalities around meetings, documents, and decisions. It is easy to fall into a jargon of “it will sort itself out”. And in most cases, it actually does. The problem is only when it doesn’t. Then you find yourself in a situation where it is difficult or impossible to rewind and try to resolve the problems. Structure and discipline are therefore important throughout the project.
One of the most important insights from the legal processes is that what has been the main cause of the problems has usually arisen quite early in the project. Often both parties have chosen to continue working with the attitude that it will sort itself out. And even though the problem has gradually grown during the project, it takes a very long time before the parties realise that it cannot be solved. And only then do they throw in the towel and call in external help to manage the situation.
Many of the projects that ended up in court would not have needed to do so. Had only the customer or vendor had the courage to put their foot down and slow down or stop the project in time, it could have been avoided. Even if this leads to delayed implementation, higher costs, or loss of prestige, it is often better to stop and take a timeout to discuss the situation. Then the damage is usually limited, and there is an opportunity to save not only the system but also the relationship between the parties.
