Nearly 70% of digital transformation projects fail to meet their objectives, and finance systems implementations are no exception.

To experienced leaders, there are countless ways a finance systems upgrade can go sideways.

And while EPM and ERP upgrades are notorious for their expense, complexity, vendor hype and misalignment with internal teams, the technology itself is rarely to blame.

More often, it’s people, processes, and planning that fall short, and even well-planned projects can slip if perhaps too many assumptions go unchallenged.

Too many tasks may be underestimated, or too few people are in place to manage the realities of delivery.

Our team of experienced finance systems consultants explain how to spot (and avoid) the biggest threats to a successful implementation.

1. Planning blind spots

When discovery phases are rushed or shaped around assumptions it can be easy to underestimate what a new system needs to do, or overestimate what it can.

Undefined requirements, incomplete processes, and built-in workarounds often unravel during delivery, leading to cost overruns.

A planned 12-month implementation can easily become two years if legacy-system complexity is underestimated.

Poor planning also risks the new system repeating many of the legacy issues if compliance and alignment issues are overlooked.

We’ve seen teams assume they can lift their month-end close process straight into the new system. But without fully mapping details like any manual steps, spreadsheet dependencies, or reporting logic, it breaks down in testing and has to be rebuilt from scratch,” said David Miles, US Managing Director, SystemsAccountants.

Manual handoffs, spreadsheet workarounds, and reliance on legacy reports, missed during planning, quickly became blockers during delivery.

“Most clients have a strong vision. But shaping that vision into something the system can actually deliver requires challenge early on, not once delivery has started,” said David Miles.

Strong discovery means stress-testing that vision and drilling down with questions like ‘What problem are we solving?’ or ‘What does good look like for this business, not for the vendor’s template?’ “That clarity up front can save months, and hundreds of hours, in the long run,” Miles added.

This is where a skilled Finance Systems Project Manager or ERP Business Analyst can make a critical difference; translating vision into structured requirements before the build begins.

2. Scope creep

Scope creep isn’t an obvious problem until it has accumulated enough mass to force an implementation off the rails.

ERP and EPM projects are especially vulnerable to bloat with businesses building more functionality than needed in the first rollout.

A reporting tweak or an extra approval layer can lead to another workflow that “shouldn’t take long”.

Standard finance reporting in an EPM rollout may initially seem sufficient, but late requests for things like custom P&L structures, or region-specific dashboards, can quickly inflate scope and push the project over budget.

Each request may seem minor, but collectively they drain focus, delay delivery, and strain resources.

“Scope creep is one of the most common reasons ERP projects lose control,” said Miles. “What starts as a simple plan often grows into something far more complex than the business intended, and without the right engagement, that scale can undermine buy-in.”

Robust change control from day one is essential to keep scope in check; requests should be formally handled by a dedicated steering committee, not casually agreed via side channels.

A dedicated ERP Implementation Lead or PMO Analyst is often the first line of defence here, tracking decisions, managing governance, and helping project sponsors push back on unplanned additions.

3. Poor data preparation and migration

The process of data migration should carry a health warning. No software can deliver accurate results if fed inaccurate or incomplete data.

Extracting, validating, and transforming data from legacy finance systems into a new ERP or EPM often proves far more complex than anticipated.

Initial assumptions that existing data is “fine” can meet reality during testing as duplication, inconsistencies, and critical gaps are uncovered.

Since internal teams, not vendors, own the data, deciding what to retain often becomes a bottleneck, leading to unnecessary complexity and migration of incomplete or redundant records.

“One of the biggest missteps we see is treating all data as equally important,” Miles noted. “Teams try to migrate everything, then get bogged down in cleansing tasks that don’t add value. What matters most is agreeing early what data the business actually needs and who’s responsible for getting it ready.”

Effective migrations start by resolving existing data issues before implementation begins, taking a “less-is-more” approach, and assigning dedicated SMEs, or third-party support, to clearly identify and migrate only the most critical, validated information.

A strong ERP Data Migration Specialist or Finance Transformation Director will flag this early and define exactly what’s needed for a clean cutover.

Unresolved data issues consistently delay builds, disrupt UAT cycles, and undermine user trust post go-live.

4. Overloading internal teams

One of the biggest threats to a successful implementation is putting too much of the implementation on internal staff; the month-end reporting cycle doesn’t stop for a systems project.

Stakeholders who juggle systems upgrades with their day jobs risk compounding delays and harming the wider business.

The specific additional tasks required mean workshops, vendor meetings, and travel all eating time that is rarely factored in during planning.

Having to manage both day-to-day responsibilities and project tasks risks overloading key individuals

SMEs often juggle business-as-usual reporting demands alongside implementation meetings and data migration checks. This frequently leads to missed or delayed tasks, increasing stress levels and errors. It also increases the risk of attrition at the exact moment consistency is needed most.

“The most successful programmes plan for internal workload from the start,” said Miles. “They bring in backfill, or delivery leads with the right domain knowledge, so internal SMEs can stay focused and the project doesn’t compete with day jobs.”

Typical backfill roles might include an Interim Finance Manager, Financial Controller, or a Finance Systems Consultant brought in to stabilise BAU.

5. Mishandled training

One of the most delicate aspects to handle of any implementation is training.

Starting too early risks confusion if aspects of the software change significantly before go-live. Leaving it too late means the window to course-correct is short.

It’s fairly common for businesses to provide generic training sessions shortly before go-live, covering every module superficially, but when users encounter real scenarios, like month-end reconciliations or quarterly close cycles, they encountered process gaps, errors, and frustration.

Staff typically retain just a fraction of what they learn in generic sessions, and over time, this erodes process consistency and system ROI.

“Plenty of businesses say they prioritise training, but it’s often the first thing squeezed when deadlines get tight,” said Miles. “We’re now seeing more take a ‘training-as-a-service’ approach; short, targeted sessions tied to actual events like month-end or forecast cycles. It’s more relevant, and it sticks.”

This approach helps users master the system by doing, not just listening.

A dedicated Training & Change Lead or Finance Systems Trainer can help embed knowledge in phases, matched to real business workflows.

Act early to avoid pitfalls hiding in plain sight

The five issues we outlined are patterns our digital transformation experts have observed repeatedly in the field, across finance transformations of every size and complexity.

Most systems projects don’t fail at go-live but will slip quietly off course during discovery and delivery through a build-up of friction, confusion, and cost.

The biggest risks often get missed in the early stages, whilst duplicate efforts, missed timelines and poor user adoption all carry a price which grows as the programme unfolds.

To avoid falling into these traps, success hinges on the capabilities of the delivery teams managing the implementation.

Leaders need specialists who understand the business, challenge scope drift, bridge vendor and team priorities, and keep delivery moving when capacity runs short.

“You need a north star,” Miles said. “Decide early what success looks like and use it to guide every decision. Projects get noisy. Priorities shift. But if you stay focused on the problem you’re solving, you’re far more likely to deliver what the business actually needs.”