System Selection to replace multiple legacy packages

Objective

Our client had experienced a sustained period of growth, both organic and through acquisition. They already worked in Building Services, in a specific discipline, but through acquisition that encompassed different streams of work. The business was still family-run, with one of the three directors also being in charge of Operations and business improvements. Their strategy with the acquired/ new businesses, had been to get them working and billing as soon as possible, which meant retaining their legacy systems. While they had tried to rationalise Finance functions to a Shared Services function, the patchwork of multiple, different software packages was causing an overload of data entry and inefficiency. This was having a huge impact on their Payroll processing, in particular. We were engaged to initially review the Payroll process to find a way to streamline it, ideally through system integrations. Payroll touched many of their software packages, so this naturally expanded to a review of whether their current strategy of maintaining multiple systems was adequate.

Solution Delivery

• The deliverable of our Systems Review was a Recommendation Report, determining whether it would be possible to integrate the variety of systems in use, or whether it would be simpler to replace aspects of the software. There were three different finance packages in use, with six unique installations, as well as six different installations of the Service and Project Management software. The Service and Project Management software had predefined connection points for Finance, which were limited and would not work easily for all the packages. There were also multiple peripheral or (what were perceived as) “Best of Breed” or client-specific systems in use.
• In order to simplify the software landscape for the client, we provided a visual data map showing systems, businesses within the group using them, plus the current semi-automated or manual connection points between them. This allowed it to clear to the key stakeholders that there were too many different packages in use and that some consolidation would be needed in order to make processing more manageable for the Shared Services Finance team. Once we raised this with the business, they asked for options for system replacement, rather than a complicated system of integrations.
• In order to give the business some options, we then provided three different Future State system map options, with varying degrees of system change. This ranged from the use of one of the bespoke systems across all the businesses in the group; to replacement of just the Service/Project Management software; to the replacement of all existing systems with a whole-of-business ERP.
• Based on the information we had learned from the initial Review, we put together a list of key functional requirements for the whole-of-business-ERP. The business vetted this and adjusted it as needed.
• An initial RFI document was put together and we submitted it to ten different vendors, all chosen by the business. As a late addition, one of the business directors requested we include their incumbent Service and Project Management software, even though it was not a whole-of-business-ERP option.
• The RFI responses were used to develop a vendor shortlist, which was initially for six different vendors. The shortlist was developed based on price and functional fit. However, there was some concern in the business that some of the vendors had not adequately addressed some of the payroll requirements.
• An additional Request for Information document was developed and sent to the vendors, this time presenting specific functional scenarios that needed to be addressed. After receipt of this document, three vendors pulled out of the process, leaving three shortlisted vendors.
• The final three shortlisted vendors were sent an RFP document, to be used as the basis for the potential future agreement. Each vendor was also given a day-slot for a software presentation and key points to cover in the sessions.
• The vendor demonstrations commenced and this was when the process began to falter. Out of the three vendors, one had decided to completely ignore the requested content and instead show the package “bells and whistles”. It also became clear very quickly that one of the key decision makers in the business was completely against the idea of any sort of software change in the business, and this process in general.

Achievements

• This is one of the few projects that we have done where we were unable to provide a satisfactory outcome. There was not enough buy-in from the business directors regarding the change, which manifested in a total torpedoing of the software demonstrations.
• It became apparent at this time, that the only way that change would occur was if a new system could do several specific items that one of the directors was attached to in one of the incumbent systems. These items were niche and specific, so this was impossible to achieve.  It meant that the final decision was to not make a decision, as in, the business would not pick any of the nominated packages.
• Instead, the business decided to stay put, with their patchwork of software systems, and felt that this was a better position for them to be in.
• While cost was a factor with some of the nominated systems, the business were also aware of the ROI in terms of less systems to maintain and a more efficient workforce. However, this was not strong enough to impact the decision.
• The only silver lining in the process was that the business engaged with a Time Capture software vendor. This vendor had been included as part of the solution package from one of the ERP vendors. The aim was to attempt to use this system and integrate to both the Service and Project Management software and the various Payroll packages. None of these systems had robust capacity to do this.
• At this point in time, we decided it was better to disengage from the process, as we could not provide them with anything else.
• Lessons learned – Insufficient executive sponsorship will destroy a project; not everyone likes the idea of software change; quoting Kenny Rogers ” you gotta know when to walk away and know when to run”; and finally, ERP vendors are quite good at shooting themselves in the foot.

If you’d like to learn more about this project or talk to us, click here to contact us.