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