A Not-So-Hidden Agenda?

CFO Magazine has, perhaps inadvertantly, divulged something we've suspected for some time, and risked a "paranoid" label in the process. The March issue features survey results from a sample of 160 "senior finance executives" to share advice and lessons learned from ERP implementations.

The "eager" panel ranked its Number One priority attribute as scalability and adaptability to changing buisness profiles, which the magazine also identified as the single greatest obstacle to realizing value from an ERP investment.

The appetite for full commitment of staggering resource requirements to implement an ERP has troubled some of us for years, shutting down the priorities of other operational needs for the duration. Curiously, ease of implemetation was ranked next to last among important ERP attributes.

The cynic among us might suggest that the ranking translates as CFOs simply not caring about what it would take to operate the business, as the elusive scalability was reported to be over ten times as important as ease of implementation.

Scalability was also ranked as four times as important as ease of customization, the tweaking absolutely imperative to meet the unique needs of a specific business model. Translation? The CFO really doesn't care how you achieve the impossible, just so long as the miracles keep on coming.

Nowhere in the survey was support for operational functionality so much as mentioned. The phrase "business processes" appeared, but without context, and with no linkage to the nuts and bolts of acquiring, making, and distribution that actually define what the business is. The appearance is that the CFO (and his or her minions) is happy if the accounting module gets in, and a General Ledger can be maintained.

Of course, ERP justifications are suspect, partly because CFOs want them, and partly because vendor salespeople are extraordinarily creative. One responsondent uses a rule of thumb that triples the vendor-provided cost of ownership. Other executives recommend tripling the time and cost to implement an ERP.

Value was stressed by respondents, with a vague bias for supporting cost reductions, and a hope for improved analysis. Anecdotally, other references point to the Data Rich, Information Poor (DRIP) syndrome resulting from ERP implementation.

Some advice was right on, and would, paraphrased, apply to any IT implementation: have a strong evaluation team, train and train again, check the bad references along with the good, swallow hard and push to the wall for realistic cost and benefit comparisons, test until only waterboarding remains as an option, and invest in authentic hands-on consultants.

Is it any wonder that we shrink back a bit when the CFO comes knocking with the latest magical solution, armored with a breastplate of "corporate has decided"?