An organization has a key stakeholder who initiates the implementation of a new business system (such as a planning and budgeting system). Typically, this stakeholder is a senior executive – often the CFO or CEO – who acts as the project's "Sponsor." The Sponsor is convinced that the new system will solve critical business challenges. However, other employees who will ultimately use the system daily do not clearly see its value and prefer familiar tools such as Excel, Google Sheets, or existing accounting software.
Consequently, the project is enforced from the top-down using administrative measures, resulting in resistance from end users. When (or if) the Sponsor shifts focus to other company priorities, the implementation stalls or may even be formally completed but never truly adopted.
The Sponsor understands the potential business benefits of the system but fails to effectively communicate these advantages to the broader team or provides only superficial explanations. Employees do not receive clear answers to critical questions like, "How will this specifically benefit me? How exactly will this system simplify my work? Why should I take on additional tasks when my existing workload remains unchanged?" Without clear personal incentives, employees often revert to familiar methods – after all, the old way "already worked."
Meanwhile, the implementation might seem formally successful: the system is installed, technical requirements are met, and acceptance certificates are signed. However, employees do not actively use the system. Eventually, the Sponsor becomes frustrated and frequently blames the vendor for delivering an "unsuitable solution."
The project moves forward only due to administrative pressure, as long as the Sponsor has willpower, time, and faith. Employees remain reluctant to learn or contribute information essential to the project.
Employees, unclear about the system’s value, participate superficially. They ignore new processes, neglect system testing, and skip training sessions.
The system is said to "not work" (in reality – it’s simply not being used). The implementation is either frozen or enters a prolonged phase of endless "tweaks" with no visible results. The project is ultimately considered a failure.
Consider a large mining holding company managing multiple mines, each containing several operational quarries. Each quarry involves complex cost calculations requiring regular profitability analysis over medium to long-term horizons. If ore volumes decline or maintenance and equipment costs increase, management may decide to mothball the facility.
Effective decision-making requires frequent "what-if" scenario analysis – for instance, halting extraction at one site and starting development at another. The company’s CFO regularly needs accurate economic profitability analyses for each site. Although numerous Excel templates exist for these calculations, constant changes in specifications and cost standards make the process cumbersome. Each recalculation demands extensive manual effort from the finance department, which struggles to process data efficiently within existing Excel frameworks. To resolve this, the CFO decides to implement a new automated system. The resulting calculations would form the basis for annual budgeting.
After selecting a software platform, the design phase begins. The contractor prepares a design document submitted for approval, initiating endless rounds of revisions and conflicting feedback from various departments. Some departments provide contradictory input, either internally or in comparison with earlier agreed requirements.
The finance department – key users – quickly approves the design since they understand how the new system will simplify their tasks. However, problems arise with other departments:
Although all departments share responsibility, most lack motivational incentives. Staff either intentionally prolong the approval process through continuous "clarifications" or attempt to reduce their future workload, jeopardizing successful implementation.
With an authoritarian management style, the Sponsor pressures departments and implementers to quickly finalize and approve the design. Department heads complain the document is incomplete. During a cross-functional meeting, the Sponsor reviews comments, perceives them as minor or contradictory, and forcibly obtains approval.
Unfortunately, this approach does not address the underlying problems, causing similar issues in subsequent implementation phases.
“Automate planning and budgeting” is not a properly defined goal. Goals should be specific, measurable, and clearly defined – for example, reducing staff workload or minimizing routine tasks.
Key users (finance specialists, controllers, analysts) revert to old methods despite having a new tool. They often cite reasons such as system complexity (in reality, lack of proper training), unfriendly interfaces (lack of experience), or system errors (often misinterpretations of new data formats).
Employees are not adequately informed about why the system is essential, how it will facilitate their daily tasks, or how it may affect their career development. Merely stating, “We’ll implement a new system, and everyone will just start using it” simply doesn’t work.
1. Clearly define value for all stakeholders
For example:
2. Identify a motivated "project champion"
Engage employees eager to adopt innovative solutions first. Let them be the first to test the system, help shape a positive image of it among their peers, and eventually become ambassadors for the change.
3. Establish measurable objectives and clear success criteria
Instead of vague objectives, set clear, attainable metrics emphasizing productivity improvements. For example:
4. Invest in comprehensive training and ongoing support
After system launch, continuously gather user feedback and hold regular training and Q&A sessions. Employees should consistently feel supported in learning new tools, not left isolated with unfamiliar technologies.
Join us on April 17 for the webinar "How to avoid mistakes in automation projects" — we’ll cover common mistakes companies make at various stages of automation. The webinar starts at 10:30 AM (UAE time). Full agenda and registration — via the link.
