Whether your team is in the early stages of planning an ERP implementation, actively working through one, or somewhere in between, the decisions made about a handful of non-technical elements will shape the outcome as much as anything on the configuration side.
Gartner predicts that by 2027, more than 70% of recently implemented ERP initiatives will fail to fully meet their original business case goals. The reasons for said failure vary, but a familiar pattern tends to emerge when you look closely at where things go sideways.
The thing is, budget pressure is a constant in ERP projects. And when scope needs to shrink, the cuts often appear across the same three places.
Training, testing, and organizational change management feel like optional initiatives during an ERP project but ultimately have more of a direct influence on the outcomes of your project than anything else.
They may not show up in a product demo, and they rarely generate excitement in a steering committee. But without them implementation risks accumulate, and they often make the difference between a system that gets adopted and one that gets endured.
As you navigate your next ERP project, here are three pitfalls to watch out for across each of these areas, and what you can do to ensure the implementation doesn’t get away from you.
Pitfall 1: Training That Doesn’t Drive Adoption
When recorded walkthroughs are the default delivery method, it’s easy to understand why training is not the most exciting of ERP workstreams. They are, after all, cheap to produce and easy to include in a statement of work. But convenience does not guarantee effectiveness.
Adult learners retain far more from hands-on experience than passive consumption. Sitting someone in front of a new UI with guided exercises and real scenarios will outperform a video library every time. The muscle memory builds differently when you’re actually doing the thing.
Before your next project begins, ask your implementer explicitly about training. Inquire into whether in-person, hands-on training is available and if it’s included in scope. If it’s not, push for it. The cost delta is small relative to the downstream impact of a user base that isn’t confident in the system.
For teams whose implementer can’t deliver this type of enablement, RPI runs two-day Infor Bootcamps at its Baltimore headquarters, designed specifically for super users preparing for go-live.
Pitfall 2: Testing Without a Framework
Testing is typically the second line item cut when an implementation needs to get cheaper. The logic? The organization knows its own processes, so why pay a consultant to validate them?
The gap in that reasoning is that managing an ERP testing cycle is a discipline unto itself. Without structure, cycles run long, exceptions pile up, and rounds multiply. A team that finds itself in a fifth iteration of system integration testing has a process problem, not just a technical one.
Three to four testing cycles is a reasonable benchmark. Anything beyond is a red flag.
If your organization owns testing in the roles and responsibilities split, build a tracking mechanism before the first cycle kicks off. Document what needs to be tested, who’s responsible, and what the status is at each point in the cycle.
The tool matters less than the discipline: a Smartsheet, a SharePoint list, or a purpose-built system all work if they’re maintained.
Beyond ensuring your system is set up to perform after cutover, testing also serves as an excellent tool for training. New hires, for example, can use RPI’s test management platform Dokimi to rehearse processes to completion, covering a wide variety of scenarios.
Pitfall 3: Change Management Treated as a Nice-to-Have
Organizational change management has a credibility problem in some circles. Done poorly, it’s a communication plan and a few workshops. Done well, it’s one of the more tangible contributors to project outcomes.
The mechanics that move the needle are straightforward: early visibility into what’s changing and for whom, consistent communication that lets teams plan instead of react, and check-ins at each change gate to assess where the organization stands and course-correct before problems compound.
Skipping this work doesn’t make the change easier. It just means the friction shows up later, after go-live, when it’s harder to identify and even harder to correct.
Effective change management doesn’t require a large investment. A few hundred hours, scoped thoughtfully, covers the moments that matter most. If your implementer doesn’t offer it, a qualified third-party, like RPI, can fill the gap without disrupting the broader engagement.
Getting Ahead of Predictable Problems
ERP implementations are complex enough without letting avoidable risks take root. The organizations that come out of go-live in the best shape aren’t necessarily the ones with the biggest budgets or the smoothest technical rollouts. They’re the ones that treated training, testing, and change management as real workstreams from the start.
None of them are complicated in principle. But each area requires deliberate attention, the right structure in place early, and a willingness to spend where the return is real. A system that goes live on time doesn’t mean much if the people using it aren’t prepared to get the most out of it.
That’s the part worth protecting in every project budget conversation.
If you’re looking for deeper insights into how to prepare for a cloud ERP migration, including how to develop a comprehensive training, testing, and change management strategy, download our eBook, A Guide to Cloud Success: Steps for a Smooth ERP Implementation below.
CloudSuite Implementation Pitfall FAQ
1. What are the most common reasons ERP implementations fail?
Most ERP projects that fall short of their goals share a predictable set of gaps. Budget pressure leads teams to cut training, testing, and organizational change management. These workstreams rarely generate excitement in planning meetings, but their absence consistently shows up in post-go-live struggles: low user adoption, extended stabilization periods, and processes that don’t perform as expected. The technical configuration is rarely where things go wrong.
2. How many testing cycles should an ERP implementation include?
Three to four testing cycles is a reasonable target for most implementations. Projects that push past that typically have a process problem, not just a technical one. Rounds multiply when exceptions aren’t tracked properly, responsibilities aren’t clearly defined, or there’s no mechanism for monitoring status across the cycle. Building a tracking framework before the first cycle begins is one of the higher-value steps a project team can take.
3. What does effective ERP change management actually involve?
The activities that produce results are fairly straightforward: early, clear communication about what’s changing and for whom, consistent updates that allow teams to plan rather than react, and structured check-ins at key points to assess where the organization stands. Change management that consists only of a communication plan and a few workshops tends to produce limited results. The goal is reducing the friction that otherwise shows up after go-live, when identifying and correcting it is much harder.
4. What’s the difference between in-person ERP training and recorded walkthroughs?
Recorded walkthroughs are inexpensive to produce and easy to include in a project scope. They’re also consistently less effective than hands-on instruction. Adult learners build confidence through practice, not passive viewing. Guided exercises in the actual system, working through real scenarios, develop the kind of familiarity that carries into day-to-day use after go-live. If in-person training isn’t included in an implementer’s standard scope, it’s worth pushing for.
5. When should an organization bring in a third-party consultant for ERP training or change management?
When an implementer’s scope doesn’t include these workstreams, or when the depth of coverage falls short of what the project requires, a third-party firm can fill the gap without disrupting the broader engagement. This is particularly relevant for organizations managing complex go-lives across multiple sites or user groups, where the consequences of low adoption are highest.
