The Billion-Dollar IT Blunder: How Poor Planning is Draining Your Business
The Cost of Poor Planning in IT Implementations: A Business Analyst’s Perspective
For over 25 years, I have worked as an IT Business Analyst, and it never ceases to amaze me how inefficient and wasteful many Information Technology operations can be. Year after year, I witness the same issues repeated, leading to billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses. The root cause? Poor planning and an unwillingness to hit pause and start over when it becomes clear that a project is flawed from the beginning.
The Common Pitfalls in IT Implementations
One of the most common mistakes I see is when organizations engage an implementation partner under the assumption that this partner will handle all their business and system requirements. Often, sales teams make it sound like their solution is perfectly tailored to the client’s business, leading the client to believe the process will be smooth and effortless. However, the reality is quite different.
Most implementation solutions are built to serve an industry generically but still require customization to accommodate the unique nuances of each business. Additionally, companies may need to adjust their own business processes to align with the implementation partner’s system. When businesses push back against these necessary changes, it results in even more customization and a much higher level of involvement from their internal teams.
The Role of Business Process Documentation
The best way to prevent or minimize the risk of poor planning, scope creep, and poorly defined user stories is to start by documenting your current-state business processes. Before even considering implementing a new system, organizations must thoroughly document all existing business processes using business process flow diagrams.
This documentation serves as a blueprint of the current business operations, helping to:
By having clear business process flows, organizations can objectively assess software solutions and determine which package best meets their needs. This proactive approach also prevents major surprises during implementation and helps mitigate risks associated with poorly defined requirements.
The Chaos of Undefined Requirements
At the onset of a project, the implementation partner typically brings a set of general business and system requirements to the table. However, the client often arrives with little to no clearly defined requirements, assuming the partner will handle everything. This is a critical misstep. As the project progresses, clients frequently realize they need additional functionality, leading to constantly changing requirements.
This lack of structured requirements creates chaos where:
By documenting business processes beforehand, requirement gathering becomes more structured and efficient. Organizations can anticipate their needs rather than discovering them mid-project, which significantly reduces scope creep and implementation delays.
领英推荐
When I Get the Call
I am typically brought in as a Business Analyst, Project Manager, or both, to solve the problem. However, by the time I arrive, the situation is already dire. When I explain what’s going wrong, companies often don’t want to hear it. They want a quick fix—an easy button that will magically solve their problems. But this mindset is precisely what got them into trouble in the first place.
The belief that an implementation partner’s solution is “plug and play” is a dangerous misconception. Organizations must take ownership from the very beginning, investing time and resources into developing their own requirements and holding their implementation partner accountable. Every detail must be examined, and every potential issue must be addressed before implementation begins.
The Fear of Starting Over
By the time I step in, what really needs to happen is a project pause. The organization must take a step back, reevaluate the entire implementation, and potentially start over with a properly defined set of requirements and a more accurate project plan. But that rarely happens.
Why? No one wants to be the one to tell senior management that they need to start over. There is a fear of losing jobs, reputations, and credibility. Instead, companies push forward with implementations that are fundamentally flawed. The result? A system that does not meet business needs, implementation costs that spiral out of control, and an eventual realization that the system is causing inefficiencies that hurt market competitiveness.
A Lesson in Construction: The House Without a Blueprint
Pushing forward with a broken IT implementation is like trying to build a house without a blueprint. Imagine construction teams randomly putting up walls, constantly making changes without a clear plan. The result is a structurally unsound house that will eventually need to be torn down and rebuilt. In the end, the cost of this failure is exponentially higher than if the project had been halted early on to reassess and restart correctly.
Breaking the Cycle
Perhaps the most frustrating part is that many organizations, after suffering through a failed implementation, will fire the original team and then make the same mistakes all over again. The cycle continues because companies fail to learn the critical lesson:
When companies take the time to document their business processes in advance, requirement gathering becomes streamlined, gaps in software solutions are easier to identify, and implementation teams can work from a well-defined blueprint. The difference between companies that succeed with IT implementations and those that fail comes down to leadership, planning, and accountability. Those that recognize when a project is going off the rails and take decisive action to correct course are the ones that ultimately gain a competitive edge.
Final Thoughts
As someone who has seen this scenario unfold repeatedly, my advice is simple: Take ownership of your IT projects from day one. Invest the time and effort to define your requirements, hold your implementation partner accountable, and most importantly, have the courage to admit when a project needs to be paused or restarted. The cost of doing so is far less than the cost of pushing forward with a doomed implementation.
By documenting business processes at the start and adopting a proactive approach, organizations can avoid costly IT failures and build systems that truly support their business goals.