Epic Failures: 18 ERP Implementation Disasters and the Hard Lessons Learned

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems are the backbone of countless modern organizations, designed to integrate and manage core business processes like finance, human resources, manufacturing, supply chain, services, procurement, and more. Stemming from humble beginnings in manufacturing resource planning, ERP has evolved into a comprehensive suite touching nearly every function within an enterprise. When implemented successfully, an ERP system can be a transformative force, reducing costs, boosting productivity, and enhancing efficiency by unifying disparate processes and data onto a single, seamless platform.

Yet, the history of ERP is also littered with cautionary tales. The complexity, cost, and sheer scale of these projects make them inherently risky. Initial deployments, upgrades, and replacements are notoriously prone to missteps that can result in catastrophic failures, costing organizations millions, sometimes billions, of dollars, causing significant operational disruption, and even leading to lawsuits and leadership changes.

It's no wonder ERP has such a bad reputation: The history surrounding the complex and expensive enterprise software market is packed with tales of vendor mudslinging, outrageous hype and epic failures.

Here, we delve into 18 dramatic ERP flops from over the years, dissecting what went wrong and extracting valuable wisdom from the wreckage. These stories serve as stark reminders of the critical factors that can make or break an ERP project.

Case Studies in Catastrophe: Examining Noteworthy ERP Failures

Each ERP failure is a unique confluence of technical, organizational, and human factors. By examining specific cases, we can identify recurring themes and understand the multifaceted nature of these complex projects.

1. The Birmingham City Council Fails to Plan

In 2022, the Birmingham City Council in the UK embarked on a project to replace its existing SAP ERP system with Oracle, aiming to streamline critical functions like payments and HR. Despite the clear objectives, the project quickly ran into trouble. A series of fundamental missteps, including inadequate project oversight, poor design choices, and constantly shifting design requests, plagued the implementation.

The financial fallout was significant. The project's initial estimate was around £39 million (approximately $53 million USD). However, a scathing 67-page report released in February 2025 by Grant Thornton estimated additional costs soaring into the £90 million ($123 million USD) range. The report highlighted a pervasive culture where "bad news was not welcome," leading project managers to bury serious risks and challenges in supporting documents rather than reporting them directly.

The operational impact was equally severe. The Grant Thornton audit stated, "The impact of the failed implementation has resulted in the Council being without an adequate financial management system and cash receipting system for over two years." This lack of functional systems crippled essential council operations. The audit pointed to inadequate project governance, poor design decisions, fluctuating requirements, and a critical shortage of in-house expertise compounded by high staff turnover as key contributors to the disaster.

Lessons Learned: This case underscores the absolute necessity of robust project governance, clear and stable requirements, realistic planning, and transparent reporting. Ignoring or downplaying problems in the project's early stages is a recipe for disaster. Adequate internal expertise and stable project teams are also crucial.

2. Mission Produce: This Avocado Will Self-Destruct in Five Days

Mission Produce, a global leader in packing, ripening, and distributing avocados, prides itself on delivering perfectly ripe fruit year-round. In November 2021, the company launched a new ERP system intended to support international expansion and improve operational visibility and financial reporting. The goal was ambitious, but the reality was a stark contrast.

Immediately after the go-live, the company faced a crisis. The new system failed to provide accurate, real-time information on inventory levels and ripeness, critical data for a perishable product like avocados. This led to a significant portion of their stock becoming unfit for sale. To meet customer commitments, Mission Produce was forced to purchase fruit from other suppliers, taking a substantial hit to their profit margins. Automated customer invoicing also experienced significant delays.

CEO Stephen Barnard understated the situation, telling investors, "Despite the countless hours we spent planning and preparing for this conversion, we nevertheless experienced significant challenges with the implementation. While we weren’t naive to the risk of disruption to the business, the extent and magnitude was greater than we anticipated."

The company had to scramble, developing new manual processes to keep information flowing and hiring a third-party consultant at a cost of $3.8 million over nine months to fix the system. While a poor avocado harvest in Mexico also impacted earnings, Mission Produce attributed the $22.2 million year-on-year drop in gross profit for the quarter primarily to the ERP problems.

Lessons Learned: Thorough testing, especially for core operational processes like inventory management and supply chain, is non-negotiable, particularly for businesses dealing with perishable goods or complex logistics. Underestimating the potential for disruption and having inadequate contingency plans can be devastating. The cost of fixing a failed implementation far outweighs the cost of proper planning and testing.

3. Invacare Faces Long Wait and Increased Cost for Health Care ERP Intervention

Invacare, a manufacturer of medical devices, provides another example of an ERP project hitting a major roadblock. The company attempted a SAP upgrade, starting with its North American business unit in October 2021. The initial rollout was problematic, causing issues with online ordering and delays in accounts receivable, though the company reported things were stabilizing by the end of that quarter.

This wasn't Invacare's first rodeo with ERP pain; they had issues with an earlier upgrade between 2005 and 2009. Compounding the current ERP challenges, Invacare was undergoing significant restructuring post-pandemic, simplifying product lines and adapting its supply chain. This made it difficult for the ERP team to keep pace with the evolving business structure.

In early 2022, Invacare made the difficult decision to put the SAP project on hold. CEO Matt Monaghan explained the pause was necessary to align the ERP implementation with the revised business footprint. "We wanted to pause on investing in the current footprint, which would only be redone based on how the footprint is revised... Once we have that template created in North America, that will be deployed globally."

Crucially, even with the project halted, Invacare was contractually obligated to continue paying its systems integrator the same monthly fee. This ongoing cost for a paused project did not sit well with the board, leading to Monaghan's departure two weeks later, as the company sought new leadership to oversee its business transformation.

Lessons Learned: ERP projects must be tightly aligned with business strategy and transformation initiatives. Pausing a project can be necessary, but contractual terms with vendors and systems integrators must be carefully negotiated to avoid paying for idle resources. Flexibility in contracts and a clear understanding of payment milestones are vital. Business restructuring can significantly impact IT projects, requiring careful coordination.

4. Protective Packaging Firm’s Profit Takes a Knock from ERP

Ranpak, a protective packaging firm, experienced a less catastrophic but still impactful ERP implementation. Their move to a cloud-based SAP system was part of a broader digital transformation and was completed on time and within budget in less than a year. However, the initial results were disappointing.

The new ERP went live in January 2022, coinciding with the start of their fiscal year. After a planned downtime period, the company faced significant inefficiencies as employees navigated the new system. CEO Omar Asali noted, "We experienced inefficiencies as we got up the learning curve in the new system."

The timing was particularly unfortunate, as the software rollout coincided with the disruption caused by Russia's attack on Ukraine, which exacerbated supply chain issues and increased input costs. The combination of internal system inefficiencies and external market pressures led to a decline in sales, processing, and shipping problems, and an inability to adjust prices quickly enough. This resulted in a $5 million drop in net profit in the first quarter.

While some software issues persisted into the second quarter, and implementation costs reached $6.5 million by the end of the third quarter, the situation improved. By early November, the new ERP system began delivering benefits, providing better and faster measurement of productivity and KPIs.

Lessons Learned: Even a technically successful and on-budget ERP rollout can cause short-term operational disruption and impact financial performance as users adapt. Adequate training and post-go-live support are crucial. External market conditions can amplify the impact of internal system changes, highlighting the need for resilience and agility during transitions.

5. Snack Manufacturer Bites Off More Than It Can Chew with ERP Change

J&J Snack Foods, known for products like soft pretzels and frozen beverages, faced ERP problems stemming from an older system, Oracle's JD Edwards. The company decided to standardize its entire operations on the JD Edwards platform, which was already in use in its frozen beverages division.

Unusually, J&J chose to switch systems mid-fiscal year, in February 2022, typically a quieter period for snack sales. However, February 2022 turned out to be unexpectedly busy, and the timing of the ERP transition proved problematic.

CEO Daniel Fachner reported to investors in May, "The implementation created unforeseen temporary, operational, manufacturing and supply chain challenges that affected the performance of our food service and retail segments during the quarter." These challenges included lost sales opportunities totaling $20 million and a $4.5 million hit to operating income. The frozen beverages segment, already on JD Edwards, saw a 50% sales increase, highlighting the disruption elsewhere.

By May, the problems were largely resolved, with the company focused on "just fine-tuning a few pieces of it."

Lessons Learned: The timing of an ERP go-live is critical. Choosing a period of low business activity is generally advisable. Mid-year or during peak seasons can severely amplify the impact of any unforeseen issues. Thoroughly understanding the operational impact of the transition on all business units is essential.

6. Haribo’s Failure to Map Workflows

Haribo, the German confectionery giant famous for its gummy bears, began a major transition to SAP S/4HANA in October 2018. The ambitious project aimed to consolidate 16 candy factories across 10 countries from disparate, sometimes decades-old, standalone ERP systems onto a single modern platform.

However, a critical failure occurred during the implementation: the project team did not adequately map the company's existing business processes and workflows to the new SAP system. This lack of alignment meant the new system didn't accurately reflect how Haribo actually operated.

Shortly after the SAP system went live, the consequences became apparent. Haribo struggled to track raw materials and inventory accurately. This operational blindness led directly to product shortages in grocery stores, particularly impacting sales of their signature Gold Bear gummy candy. In 2018, Haribo saw a significant 25% decline in Gold Bear sales, a direct result of the supply chain disruption caused by the flawed ERP implementation.

Lessons Learned: Business process reengineering and mapping are fundamental prerequisites for a successful ERP implementation. Simply installing new software without adapting it to, or adapting the business processes for, the way the company works will lead to operational chaos. Understanding and configuring the ERP to support actual workflows is paramount.

7. Leaseplan: A Monolith Unfit for the Emerging Digital World

Vehicle management company Leaseplan embarked on a major IT transformation, commissioning HCL Technologies in 2016 to develop a new SAP-based Core Leasing System (CLS) intended to be rolled out across 32 countries. This followed a seemingly successful initial SAP deployment in its Australian subsidiary.

Auditors raised concerns as early as 2018 regarding user access and change management controls within CLS. By March 2019, project timelines were slipping, and auditors added recommendations on managing outsourcing risk. Months later, Leaseplan made the drastic decision to abandon the CLS project entirely, writing off a staggering €92 million ($100 million USD) in project costs, plus millions more in related restructuring and consultancy fees. Only €14 million spent on separately developed IT modules was deemed salvageable.

In its second-quarter results, Leaseplan explained the core problem: CLS was deemed "not be fit for purpose in the emerging digital world in which [it] operated." The monolithic nature of the SAP system, they concluded, "hindered its ability to make incremental product and service improvements at a time of accelerated technological change."

Leaseplan pivoted to a strategy of building a more modular system using best-of-breed third-party components alongside existing systems, believing this approach would be more scalable and allow for faster, incremental deployments and updates.

Lessons Learned: Long, monolithic ERP implementations can struggle to keep pace with rapid technological change and evolving business needs. Agility and the ability to make incremental improvements are critical in the digital age. Consider modular or hybrid approaches if a single, large system risks becoming outdated before it's even fully deployed. Vendor selection and managing outsourcing risks are also key.

8. Southeast Power Group’s Bad Data

Southeast Power, a manufacturer in the electric infrastructure sector, partnered with SAP and a systems integrator in 2014 to implement SAP Business One, aiming to streamline operations by migrating data from legacy systems. The project was initially targeted for a January 2018 deployment.

However, the project deadlines repeatedly slipped, primarily due to critical issues with data quality and confusion surrounding pricing configurations. The corrupted and inaccurate data migrated from legacy systems meant the new ERP was unable to generate accurate invoices, financial statements, or other essential accounting documents. This fundamental failure crippled core business functions.

According to court documents, the project remained unfinished four years after it began, despite similar SAP Business One deployments typically taking less than a year. The delays in implementing a functional ERP system directly impacted Southeast Power's ability to fulfill customer orders on time, leading to delays in the construction of power generators and a loss of critical company data.

Southeast Power filed a lawsuit against SAP and the systems integrator in 2018, though the case was eventually dismissed in 2022.

Lessons Learned: Data migration and data quality are often the most underestimated and critical components of an ERP project. 'Garbage in, garbage out' is a harsh reality. Significant effort and resources must be dedicated to data cleansing, validation, and migration planning well in advance of the technical implementation. Ignoring data issues will inevitably lead to operational paralysis.

9. MillerCoors: Fighting in Public, Then Making Nice

In 2014, brewing giant MillerCoors, a product of years of industry consolidation, was operating with seven different instances of SAP's ERP software. To unify its operations, the company hired Indian IT services firm HCL Technologies to implement a single, integrated SAP system across the entire organization. The project, however, was anything but smooth.

The initial rollout was plagued with issues, including eight "critical" severity defects, 47 high-severity defects, and thousands of other problems identified during an extended "go-live hypercare" period. By March 2017, the situation had deteriorated to the point where MillerCoors sued HCL for $100 million, alleging inadequate staffing and failure to meet contractual obligations.

HCL responded in June 2017 with a countersuit, claiming MillerCoors' own management dysfunction was the real cause of the failure and that the company was attempting to blame HCL. Observers noted that the contract wording, based on a pre-existing general services agreement, left significant room for interpretation and conflict.

Ultimately, the public dispute ended in December 2018 when the two companies reached an amicable out-of-court settlement, suggesting the legal battle may have served as a high-stakes negotiation tactic.

Lessons Learned: Clear, specific, and robust contracts with systems integrators are essential, particularly for complex, multi-instance consolidations. Defining roles, responsibilities, deliverables, and acceptance criteria precisely can help avoid disputes. While lawsuits can occur, they are costly and damaging; focusing on strong partnership and clear communication from the outset is preferable. Internal organizational issues can derail even well-intentioned projects.

10. Revlon: Screwing Up Badly Enough to Enrage Investors

Cosmetics giant Revlon faced a significant integration challenge after acquiring Elizabeth Arden in 2016. Both companies had positive past experiences with ERP rollouts (Elizabeth Arden with Oracle Fusion, Revlon with Microsoft Dynamics AX). However, the merged entity chose a new path, opting for SAP HANA with a target go-live date in December 2016.

The implementation proved disastrous, particularly impacting Revlon's North Carolina manufacturing facility. The system issues essentially sabotaged production and distribution, leading to millions of dollars in lost sales. In March 2019, the company attributed the fiasco to a "lack of design and maintenance of effective controls in connection with the… implementation."

The operational disruption forced Revlon to incur significant expedited shipping fees and other unanticipated expenses to try and mitigate the decline in customer service levels. The crisis sent Revlon's stock price plummeting, which in turn led to the company's own stockholders filing a lawsuit against the company.

Lessons Learned: Mergers and acquisitions significantly increase the complexity of ERP projects. Integrating systems and processes from two different companies requires meticulous planning and execution. A lack of internal controls and effective project management can have devastating financial and reputational consequences, even triggering legal action from stakeholders.

11. Lidl: Big Problem for German Supermarket Giant

The collaboration between German supermarket giant Lidl and SAP on an ERP transition was expected to be a success story. Starting in 2011, the project aimed to move Lidl away from its aging in-house inventory system to SAP. Despite spending nearly €500 million (approximately $540 million USD) over seven years, Lidl scrapped the project in 2018.

The core issue reportedly stemmed from a fundamental difference in how Lidl managed inventory data. Lidl based its systems on the price it *paid* for goods, while standard SAP configurations and most retail systems are based on the retail price. Lidl was unwilling to change its long-standing business practice, requiring extensive customization of the SAP system. This customization proved incredibly complex and difficult to manage, setting off a cascade of implementation problems.

Compounding the technical challenges were organizational issues, including high turnover within Lidl's IT leadership and finger-pointing at the consultancy involved in guiding the implementation. The inability to reconcile Lidl's unique process with the standard ERP functionality, combined with internal instability, created a recipe for a half-billion-euro disaster.

Lessons Learned: Significant customization of standard ERP software is risky and expensive. Companies must be willing to adapt their business processes to align with the best practices embedded in the ERP system, or carefully evaluate if the chosen system can realistically support their unique requirements without excessive modification. Strong, stable project leadership and clear accountability are also critical.

12. National Grid: A Perfect Storm

Utility company National Grid, serving customers in New York, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, faced an unenviable situation during its SAP implementation. The project was three years in the making and already behind schedule. Missing the planned go-live date would mean tens of millions in cost overruns and potentially require government approval for rate hikes to cover the expense. However, going live prematurely risked compromising critical operations.

The chosen go-live date was November 5, 2012, less than a week after Superstorm Sandy devastated National Grid's service area, leaving millions without power and creating an unprecedented operational crisis. Despite the chaos, National Grid made the fateful decision to proceed with the SAP launch.

The results were catastrophic. The new system caused widespread payroll errors, with some employees overpaid and others underpaid. Over 15,000 vendor invoices could not be processed, disrupting relationships with suppliers. Financial reporting collapsed, preventing the company from securing short-term loans necessary for cash flow.

National Grid sued Wipro, its system integrator, but the case was eventually settled out of court for $75 million, a fraction of the estimated total losses.

Lessons Learned: External events can significantly impact project timelines and risks. Proceeding with a major system launch during a crisis is extremely dangerous. Contingency planning must include scenarios for unexpected disruptions. Prioritizing core functions like payroll and financial reporting during transition is vital. Clear communication and collaboration between the company and its system integrator are paramount, and contracts should anticipate potential delays and issues.

13. Worth & Co.: Interminable Rollout Leads to a Lawsuit at the Source

Worth & Co., a Pennsylvania-based manufacturing company, sought a new ERP system in 2014, selecting EDREi Solutions to implement Oracle's E-Business Suite. The initial go-live was set for November 2015, but deadlines quickly began to slip.

The date was pushed to February 2016, at which point Oracle requested an additional $260,000 for training and support. Despite this, 2016 passed without a successful rollout. In 2017, Worth & Co. replaced EDREi with another integrator, Monument Data Solutions. Another year was spent attempting, unsuccessfully, to customize the Oracle suite to meet Worth & Co.'s specific manufacturing needs.

After abandoning the project, Worth & Co. took a novel approach in February 2019: they sued Oracle directly, seeking to recoup the $4.5 million paid for licenses, professional services, and training. The lawsuit highlighted the company's frustration with the protracted, failed implementation and the perceived inability of the software to meet their requirements despite significant investment and effort.

Lessons Learned: Extended project timelines are a major red flag. Delays often indicate underlying issues with planning, scope, customization, or vendor performance. Companies should have clear exit strategies or escalation clauses in contracts when projects go significantly off track. Suing the software vendor directly, rather than just the integrator, is uncommon but highlights the potential for disputes over software suitability and vendor support.

14. Target Canada: Garbage In, Garbage Out

When Target launched its operations in Canada in 2013, it aimed to avoid common ERP data migration pitfalls by using a new SAP system and inputting fresh data rather than converting from legacy systems. However, this approach led to a different, equally devastating problem.

Upon launch, Target Canada's supply chain collapsed, resulting in widespread stockouts and empty shelves. Investigations quickly traced the problem back to the supposedly clean, newly entered data. The system was riddled with errors: incorrect dimensions, prices, manufacturers, and other critical details for thousands of products. It turned out that entry-level employees, working under immense pressure and tight deadlines, had manually entered much of the data without sufficient training or experience to identify inaccuracies provided by manufacturers.

An internal investigation reportedly found that only about 30% of the data in the system was actually correct. This fundamental data integrity failure made it impossible for the SAP system to manage inventory, logistics, and sales effectively, directly contributing to Target Canada's eventual withdrawal from the market.

Lessons Learned: Data quality is paramount, regardless of whether it's migrated or newly entered. Investing in data governance, validation processes, and proper training for data entry personnel is critical. Assuming new data is automatically clean is a dangerous mistake. The quality of the data feeding an ERP system directly determines its ability to function correctly.

15. PG&E: When ‘Sample’ Data Isn’t

Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), a major utility company, faced a different kind of data-related ERP issue: a data breach stemming from a testing environment. In May 2016, a risk analyst discovered a publicly exposed database containing sensitive details for over 47,000 PG&E computers, virtual machines, servers, and other devices. The database was accessible without any username or password.

While PG&E initially claimed the data was not production data, the analyst asserted that it was, and its exposure was a direct result of an ERP rollout project. A third-party vendor working on the implementation had been given live PG&E production data to populate a "demo" database for testing purposes. Crucially, this vendor failed to implement the necessary security measures that would protect a real production database.

This incident highlighted the significant security risks associated with handling sensitive data, even within testing or development environments during an ERP project. Production data, when used for testing, must be protected with the same rigor as in a live system.

Lessons Learned: Data security is critical throughout the ERP lifecycle, including development, testing, and migration phases. When using production data for testing, ensure it is adequately anonymized or protected with the same level of security controls as the live system. Third-party vendors handling sensitive data must adhere to strict security protocols.

16. Waste Management Disputes Vendor’s Promises

Waste Management, a large waste removal services provider, initiated an enterprise-wide ERP project in 2005 with a planned go-live in 2007. The goal was to simplify and automate order-to-cash processes, moving away from outdated workflows and legacy systems.

Waste Management selected SAP, alleging that the vendor touted its software as an out-of-the-box solution requiring minimal customization and promising up to $220 million in annual benefits from a consolidated system ready in 18 months. When the project didn't unfold as planned, Waste Management disputed these claims.

The company filed a $100 million lawsuit against SAP, alleging, among other things, that SAP had demonstrated a software mockup that was modified to appear fully functional, misleading Waste Management about the software's capabilities and implementation complexity. Waste Management later amended the lawsuit, seeking $500 million in damages.

The legal battle was eventually resolved through an out-of-court settlement, the terms of which were not disclosed.

Lessons Learned: Thoroughly vet vendor claims and demand proof of functionality, especially regarding customization requirements and promised benefits. Do not rely solely on sales demonstrations; conduct detailed proof-of-concept testing with your own data and processes. Clearly define and document all requirements and ensure the vendor agrees to specific deliverables and timelines. Legal disputes are costly and time-consuming, emphasizing the importance of due diligence and clear contractual agreements upfront.

17. The US Navy’s Four Siloed Pilot Projects

Starting in 1998, the U.S. Navy attempted to modernize its supply chain, acquisition, financial management, and other functions through four separate and independent ERP pilot projects. The intention was seemingly to test different approaches before a broader rollout.

By 2005, the Navy had spent approximately $1 billion on these pilots. However, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), the pilots failed to create a unified ERP environment. Despite overlapping functions, the projects were not interoperable due to inconsistent designs and implementation strategies. The GAO concluded that the $1 billion investment was largely wasted, although Navy leaders disputed this assessment.

The Navy eventually shifted strategy, working with SAP to deploy a single, consolidated ERP system. Three of the four original pilots were scrapped and replaced by the new SAP system, estimated to cost an additional $800 million.

Lessons Learned: A fragmented approach to enterprise-wide systems can lead to siloed, non-interoperable solutions, wasting resources and failing to achieve integration goals. Large organizations need a clear, unified strategy for ERP deployment, ensuring consistency in design, data models, and processes across different functional areas. Pilot projects should be designed with eventual integration and scalability in mind.

18. Hershey’s Rushed Timelines

One of the most frequently cited ERP failures, the Hershey's case from the late 1990s, serves as a classic example of the dangers of rushing complex IT projects. Concerned about the potential impact of the Y2K bug on its legacy systems, Hershey's decided in 1996 to replace its core systems, including ERP.

Aiming for an integrated environment, Hershey's chose three separate software solutions: SAP's R/3 for ERP, Manugistics for supply chain management (SCM), and Seibel for CRM. The vendors recommended a 48-month implementation timeline, but Hershey's pushed for an aggressive 30-month deployment to beat the perceived Y2K deadline.

The systems went live in July 1999, three months behind the already compressed schedule, right before Hershey's critical Halloween and Christmas seasons. Due to the rushed timeline, Hershey's cut corners on crucial testing, particularly integration testing between the three different software packages.

The lack of proper testing led to significant systems integration problems. The new systems were unable to process orders correctly, resulting in Hershey's being unable to fulfill over $100 million worth of candy orders, despite having the products in stock. This operational failure had immediate and severe financial consequences, including a 19% decline in quarterly profits and an 8% drop in stock price in a single day. Annual revenue dropped by 12% from 1998 to 1999, and the stock price fell by 35% between October 1998 and October 1999.

Lessons Learned: Unrealistic timelines and cutting corners on testing are major risk factors. Complex, integrated systems require adequate time for planning, configuration, customization (if necessary), data migration, and rigorous testing, especially integration testing between different modules or systems. Rushing a go-live, particularly before a critical business period, can have devastating financial and market consequences. Listen to vendor recommendations on timelines.

Surviving an ERP Rollout: Key Takeaways from the Wreckage

These 18 stories, spanning decades and diverse organizations, offer invaluable insights into the common pitfalls of ERP implementations. While each case has unique details, several recurring themes emerge, providing a roadmap for organizations hoping to avoid similar fates.

Prioritize Planning and Strategy

Many failures stemmed from inadequate upfront planning, unclear objectives, and a lack of alignment between the ERP project and overall business strategy. Define clear goals, scope, and success metrics before starting. Ensure the project is driven by business needs, not just IT mandates.

Robust Project Governance and Leadership

Effective governance, including strong executive sponsorship, clear decision-making processes, and transparent reporting, is crucial. The Birmingham City Council case highlights the danger of poor oversight and a culture that hides bad news. Strong leadership is needed to navigate challenges and keep the project on track.

Master Data Management and Migration

Data quality issues were central to the problems at Southeast Power and Target Canada. Data cleansing, validation, and a well-executed migration strategy are non-negotiable. Invest significant time and resources in preparing your data before attempting to load it into the new system.

Business Process Reengineering and Alignment

Haribo's struggles demonstrate the importance of understanding and potentially redesigning business processes to fit the ERP's capabilities. Avoid excessive customization unless absolutely necessary, as seen in the Lidl case. The ERP should enable better processes, not just automate broken ones.

Thorough Testing is Non-Negotiable

Hershey's failure is a stark reminder of the consequences of insufficient testing, especially integration testing. Develop comprehensive test plans covering all critical business scenarios and involve end-users extensively in the testing process.

Change Management and User Adoption

While not always the primary cause of catastrophic failure, inadequate change management and user training can significantly hinder the benefits realization and contribute to initial inefficiencies, as seen at Ranpak and Mission Produce. Prepare your organization and employees for the change through clear communication, training, and support.

Vendor and System Integrator Management

The cases of Invacare, MillerCoors, Waste Management, and Worth & Co. highlight the complexities of managing external partners. Select vendors and integrators carefully based on proven track records and relevant industry experience. Negotiate clear, detailed contracts with defined roles, responsibilities, timelines, and payment milestones. Maintain open communication and address issues proactively.

Realistic Timelines and Resource Allocation

Rushing the implementation, as Hershey's did, or under-resourcing the project can lead to critical errors. Develop realistic timelines based on the project's complexity, scope, and the organization's capacity for change. Ensure adequate internal resources are dedicated to the project alongside external partners.

Contingency Planning and Risk Management

Anticipate potential problems and develop contingency plans. National Grid's experience shows how external events can derail a project. Identify key risks early and develop mitigation strategies.

Security Throughout the Lifecycle

The PG&E case serves as a reminder that data security must be a priority at all stages of the project, not just in the production environment. Protect sensitive data used for testing or development with appropriate controls.

Implementing an ERP system is a complex undertaking that requires significant investment, careful planning, and diligent execution. While the potential rewards are high, the risks are equally substantial. By studying these past failures, organizations can gain valuable insights, anticipate challenges, and increase their chances of navigating their own ERP journey successfully, turning potential disasters into transformative successes.