European ERP project review: rollout or full implementation?

The client had already deployed its enterprise ERP solution in Canada and Australia, and the United Kingdom rollout was nearing completion. The next phase targeted Germany and possibly Hungary. Previous deployments were based on a Canada-centred design, with each country adding its own requirements and adaptations rather than inheriting a fully defined global template.

Before starting the Germany and Hungary phases, the client wanted an independent view to validate the project’s rationale, challenge the proposed delivery model and identify realistic opportunities to reduce costs. Three questions guided the review:

• What justified the European phase’s budget?
• Why was the work structured as an implementation rather than a simple rollout?
• What could be improved for this deployment and the next ones?

Three senior PlanAxion partners with extensive Oracle E-Business Suite experience carried out the engagement; Oracle Consulting Services attended the meetings and contributed to the assessment. The approach had five steps:

1. Orient: a joint working session to establish the program’s status, objectives and deployment context.
2. Examine: review deliverables covering the solution, scope, governance, schedule, budget, testing, conversion, training and change management.
3. Challenge: question-and-answer sessions to test assumptions and distinguish reusable work from site-specific requirements.
4. Compare: assess the client’s previous deployments and relevant implementation experience.
5. Conclude: synthesize findings and practical improvement opportunities.

A pure rollout was not possible. The Canadian design addressed Canada’s needs, not those of all future entities. European gap-analysis sessions identified differences beyond local legal requirements. Germany introduced differences in accounting, taxation, language, data retention, export controls and PLM integration, and its manufacturing operations needed a leaner model rather than a replication of Canadian complexity.

• Country scope: the United Kingdom was lighter, with mostly typical localization gaps; Germany required most of the solution’s footprint; Hungary appeared to have the fewest requirements, and its inclusion was still undecided.
• Method: Oracle Unified Method (OUM) was appropriate and allowed some deliverables to be reused.
• Governance and team: conventional and suited to an implementation, with a sound mix of business, IT and implementation-partner resources.
• Schedules and estimates: aligned with the United Kingdom and Germany scope; the United Kingdom’s actual costs supported the estimation model used for Germany.
• Training and conversion: e-learning reduced training-delivery pressure, and the conversion approach was considered appropriate.

No major cost reduction was expected from changing the structure, schedule or scope: the nature of the work required a conventional implementation. One targeted improvement opportunity was examined: transferring configuration between Oracle E-Business Suite entities. Oracle did not offer a dedicated tool; a third-party product, ConfigSnapshot, was identified as an option to assess for comparing or migrating configuration between entities and environments.

• Retain the implementation model for Germany.
• Avoid imposing the complexity of Canadian processes on German users.
• Treat configuration automation as an efficiency lever, not a substitute for design work.
• For future growth, define reusable templates by operating model: complex manufacturing, light manufacturing, distribution and sales office.