Skip to Content

A Plan for the Implementation of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) for the State of Texas

prev | next

The ERP Plan

Risks Associated with Our Recommendations

The risks associated with the implementation of BCA 3 are greatly influenced by the various multiple elements and activities that will need to be managed concurrently.

Project risks include the following:

  • Lack of participation and/or data standardization for reporting needs from Hubs both at data warehouse and transactional levels
  • Scope “creep” impacting project timeline and future upgrades due to approved modifications to baseline ERP software.
  • Lack of project funding, including eligibility of costs for federal funding
  • Lack of state sponsorship of the project
  • Lack of strong project management with appropriate authority
  • Key project dependencies (e.g., licenses, requirements development, fit/gap, RFPs) are not completed on schedule
  • Inability of state agencies to reach consensus on business requirements, policy, best practices and software to requirements fit/gap
  • Inability of state agencies and institutions of higher education to reach consensus on data standardization for reporting from the data warehouses and the interfaces
  • The new statewide ERP oversight committee does not resolve issues in a timely manner
  • Lack of participation by state agencies and institutions of higher education in project activities
  • State agencies may seek to be a hub in order to avoid changing their business processes
  • If PeopleSoft is selected, very little is known about Oracle’s Fusion direction, costs, upgrade process and other requirements that could impact ongoing ERP system maintenance, licensing and costs.
  • ERP projects of this length & magnitude may experience significant project team turnover causing the loss of key personnel.
  • Inability of agency management and end users to accept and manage the business and process changes required.
  • Scheduled project deadlines and milestones are not met.
  • ERP software may not be able to fully accommodate state and agency policies or procedures without modification greater than estimated
  • Empowerment of project teams may not be respected or accepted.
  • Turnover in key executive state positions could affect high level support for the project.
  • Loss of project’s priority status over time could result in refocus of project resources to other responsibilities,
  • Contracted implementation assistance does not meet expectations
  • State requirements may change while the project is in progress.
  • Inability of state agencies and Comptroller to reach consensus on deployment schedule.

back to top