Challenges in implementing an ERP system rarely show up as one dramatic failure. Gartner predicts that more than 70% of recently implemented ERP initiatives will fail to fully meet their original business case goals by 2027, and some fail outright, and the causes it names are almost always visible early, months before go-live, to anyone looking for them. Here are seven, and what each one looks like while it's still fixable.
Challenges in Implementing an ERP System: Why They're Rarely Sudden
Root causes vs. early signs. ERP challenges get written about almost entirely as post-mortems: a project failed, and here's why, in hindsight. ERP system challenges look completely different from the inside, months before go-live, as small, specific, and easy to explain away. That's exactly what makes them dangerous, and exactly what makes them catchable.
The Seven Reasons, and What Each Looks Like Early
1. Scope creep
What it looks like early: Requirements workshops still producing new items past the design freeze
What it looks like once it's too late: Configuration reopened weeks before go-live
2. Data quality
What it looks like early: Nobody can say who owns cleaning up duplicate records
What it looks like once it's too late: Data migration stalls repeatedly on the same unresolved records
3. User adoption
What it looks like early: Department leads ask "why are we changing this" instead of "how do we use this"
What it looks like once it's too late: Staff quietly keep a shadow spreadsheet running alongside the new system
4. Parallel running
What it looks like early: The parallel run is treated as a formality, not a real test window
What it looks like once it's too late: Discrepancies between old and new systems surface only after cutover
5. Customisation debt
What it looks like early: Every gap gets closed with a custom tweak instead of a process change
What it looks like once it's too late: Upgrades become expensive because every custom change has to be re-tested
6. Executive sponsorship
What it looks like early: The sponsor attends the kickoff, then stops showing up to reviews
What it looks like once it's too late: Decisions stall for weeks waiting on someone with authority
7. Training gap
What it looks like early: Training is scheduled as a single session near go-live
What it looks like once it's too late: Support tickets spike in week one because nobody remembers the session
"The ERP Implementation Process, and Where Most Timelines Actually Slip" covers scope creep and data quality in depth, as schedule slip causes issues within the process sequence itself; the real depth here goes to the five reasons that post doesn't cover.
Why Sponsorship and Adoption Are the Two That Compound
Prosci's own research on ERP change management finds that sponsors are critical enough to change efforts that they can make or break the initiative, with the stakes even higher during ERP implementations specifically. Weak sponsorship is usually the upstream cause, and poor adoption is what it looks like downstream, once staff notice nobody senior is actually paying attention anymore.
The two compound because they share the same visible early sign in reverse. A sponsor who stops showing up to reviews sends a signal department leads read correctly: this isn't being watched closely, so resistance carries less risk. By the time adoption problems show up as a shadow spreadsheet running alongside the new system, the sponsorship gap that caused it has usually existed for months already, unaddressed because nobody with the standing to raise it was paying close enough attention.
Parallel Running and the Training Gap Deserve the Same Early Attention
A parallel run treated as a formality, rather than a real test window, usually happens because it's scheduled at the point in the project when everyone is most eager to finish, not most willing to slow down and check for discrepancies. The discrepancies it would have caught don't disappear; they just surface after cutover instead, when the old system is no longer there to compare against.
A training gap follows a similar pattern. Training scheduled as a single session close to go-live competes with every other last-minute task in the project, and it's usually the first thing compressed when the schedule is tight. The cost of that compression doesn't show up in the training budget; it shows up as a spike in support tickets in week one, from people who technically attended a session but don't remember enough of it to use the system confidently.
Customisation Debt Deserves Its Own Warning
Every unresolved gap between the mapped process and the packaged system tempts a team into a quick custom tweak instead of a process change. Each tweak is small on its own, easy to justify in the moment it gets made. The accumulated total is what makes every future upgrade slower and more expensive, since each custom change has to be re-tested against the new version before it can go live. A system with a dozen small custom tweaks isn't a dozen small problems; it's one large, compounding one that gets more expensive to unwind with every year it's left alone.
Where Burhani Fits
We treat go-live as the middle of the project, not the finish line, and build training and sponsorship check-ins into the application development engagement itself rather than leaving them as an afterthought. This fits a business that wants these seven risks watched for actively while there's still time to act on them. It's not a fit for a project that's already treating go-live as the point where the vendor's job ends.
FAQs on Challenges in Implementing an ERP System
What are the main challenges in implementing an ERP system?
The seven most consistently cited are scope creep, data quality, user adoption, parallel running, customisation debt, executive sponsorship, and a training gap near go-live. Each one is visible early, months before it becomes an expensive, hard-to-fix problem.
What is customisation debt?
Customisation debt is the accumulated cost of every small custom tweak made to close a gap between the mapped process and the packaged system, instead of changing the process itself. Each tweak has to be re-tested against every future upgrade, which compounds over time.
Why does executive sponsorship matter so much for ERP success?
A visibly engaged sponsor signals to the rest of the organization that the change is a real priority worth adjusting to. When a sponsor disengages after kickoff, department leads and staff read that signal too, and resistance to the new system carries less perceived risk as a result.
What is a parallel run, and why does it matter?
A parallel run is operating the old and new systems side by side before fully switching over, specifically to catch discrepancies while the old system is still available as a fallback. Treating it as a formality rather than a real test window pushes those discrepancies past cutover instead.
How can user adoption problems be caught early?
Listen for the framing department leads use in early workshops. "Why are we changing this" signals resistance to the change itself; "how do we use this" signals acceptance. The first framing, left unaddressed, tends to turn into a shadow spreadsheet running alongside the new system after go-live.
The Bottom Line
Every one of these seven is visible early if someone is looking. None of them start as the dramatic failure they eventually become; they start as a small, specific, easy-to-explain-away sign, months before go-live, while it's still cheap to act on.
Talk to our team about which of the seven feels closest to where your project currently sits.
