In his book The Art of Action (2011), Stephen Bungay identifies three gaps that frustrate the ability of organizations to translate plans into actions that lead to desired outcomes. He calls them the knowledge, alignment and effects gaps. Here, I wish to reflect on Bungay’s perspective by reviewing these gaps in terms of the selection and implementation of enterprise resource planning (ERP) software.

ERP software exerts a significant influence over the way an organization manages and monitors its performance. In large organizations, ERP software can touch hundreds, even thousands of people given that today’s ERP software may have a significant organizational footprint encompassing accounting, supply-chain, manufacturing, human resources (HR), customer relationship management (CRM), environmental, social and governance (ESG) and performance management activities. ERP software is at the heart of organizational management in the world’s leading businesses.

However, most organizations approach the selection and implementation of ERP software with some trepidation. The stories of failure are legion. There are well- documented examples of businesses brought to their knees by poor selections and out- of-control implementations. Spiraling budgets, burnt-out implementation teams and legal actions between buyers and sellers are a fact of life in the world of ERP.

Often, much of this spiralling cost, team stress and organizational risk is a direct result of the uncertainty and friction generated from Bungay’s three gaps. I’ll begin by introducing a typical ERP selection and implementation process and then discuss Bungay’s gaps in the context of ERP selection and implementation

The ERP Selection and Implementation Process
Figure 1 outlines a typical ERP software selection process. At the end of this process, buyers know very little about exactly how the ERP solution they are buying will meet their business needs, because the knowledge transfer from vendor to customer is of the order of just a few days of demos and customer reference checks. Therefore it’s hardly surprising that significant knowledge and alignment gaps exist even before any implementation process begins.

Fig. 1 – Typical ERP Software Selection Process (condensed)

Figure 2 outlines a typical ERP ‘pre go-live’ implementation process. Knowledge and alignment gaps can surface at any stage of this process. And these gaps may be wide enough to have the potential to derail the project timeline or cost or cause some customers to consider switching their implementation partner. The Effects gap generally comes into play after implementation and during the initial pre go-live phase.

Fig. 2 – Typical ERP Implementation Process (condensed)

Consequently most ERP implementation projects, especially those informed by project management methodologies such as PRINCE2, are particularly concerned with managing risk. Unfortunately many project managers are not focused on actively mitigating risks caused by knowledge and alignment gaps and this is because many project managers either don’t recognise these gaps or don’t know how to mitigate them if they do. So let’s examine Bungay’s three gaps in more detail.

The Knowledge Gap
Bungay defines the Knowledge gap (p.45) as, ‘the difference between what we would like to know and what we actually know’ and a situation that prompts the ‘collection of more data’. In this context, the knowledge gap frustrates the ability of organizations to plan for an on-time, on-budget and on-benefit ERP implementation project.

Today’s ERP systems from market leaders such as SAP, Oracle and Microsoft (AX) are both broad and deep in terms of their functions and features. Much of the challenge in implementing these systems lies in figuring out how to configure the system to get the functionality you want with the minimum impact on operational (in- use) complexity. Gaining the knowledge required to design and build a fit-for-purpose solution is the key challenge for implementation partner, while communicating the information needed to enable this is the key challenge for an implementation customer.

Fig. 3 - The ERP Knowledge Gap

The ERP knowledge gap involves both parties, and has a significant role to play as a key project risk. Your implementation partner knows about the software and the best practices for configuring and using it. You know about your business processes and operational roles and responsibilities. Clearly, this is a gap that exists and needs to be crossed in every implementation. But at the same time, both parties are subject to what they mutually don’t know.

Implementation partners may have never configured the package to suit a specific business process or may uncover hidden software bugs in doing so. You may have never thought about managing a business process in the way that the system enforces or about adapting roles and responsibilities to suit new ways of doing things. So what neither of you know is an ever-present wild-card that can widen the knowledge gap, and in reality there’s no quick fix to this gap.

The Alignment Gap
Bungay defines the Alignment gap as, ‘the difference between what we want people to do and what they actually do’ and a situation that is indicated by ‘top-level frustration and lower-level confusion’. The Alignment gap also frustrates the ability of organizations to execute an on-time, on-budget and on-benefit ERP implementation.

In an ERP implementation, the alignment gap is all about methodology and expectations. If the implementation partner’s implementation methodology is not clearly communicated to and understood by the customer, alignment will suffer. Equally, if the customer’s implementation constraints are not clearly communicated and understood by the partner, alignment is impacted.

As Figure 4 shows, the ERP alignment gap is another key project risk that is created by misguided expectations created by poor communication and understanding between the two parties. Vendor methodologies must be adaptable to suit the organization size, operational style (e.g. methodical vs. agile) and team-resources of the customer. Otherwise an alignment gap will exist from the start and is likely to grow over time. And like the knowledge gap, there is a further ‘gotcha’ that may come into play in the form of unexpected events triggering timeline/people constraints (among others) that inevitably occur in implementation projects that can take many months or even years.

Fig. 4 – The ERP Alignment Gap

The Effects Gap
Bungay defines the Effects gap as, ‘the difference between what we expect our actions to achieve and what they actually achieve’ and a situation that is responded to by ‘an increase in control’ typically via the collection of more metrics. Here, the Effects gap frustrates the ability of organizations to fully realize the benefits from their ERP investment.

The total cost of ownership (TCO) of ERP solutions can easily run into millions of dollars of licensing and implementation fees, plus on-going maintenance and upgrade costs. So naturally the company boards or investors that authorize this level of expenditure expect significant benefit realization from their investment. Realization of these benefits depends on is a clear understanding of exactly what benefits are expected, communication of those expectations internally, and regular check-pointing of progress towards those benefits.

Implementation project managers are rightly focused on delivering projects on-time and on-budget. But the third deliverable, on-benefit, is often neglected or forgotten entirely. The reason is usually that benefits were never clearly defined and communicated in the first place and even if they are, it’s all too easy to forget the destination whilst dealing with the hazards of the journey.

As Figure 5 shows, unlike the previous gaps, the effects gaps is less about distance between the implementation partner and the customer and more about distance between an organization’s internal executive and operational management and the impact of ‘change strain’ on the ability of the organization to realize the expected benefits.