Deploying an ERP is one of the most defining decisions a company can make. It is also one of the riskiest not because the tools are flawed, but because the projects are complex, the human stakes are considerable, and mistakes are costly to correct once the project is underway.
Most companies that have experienced a difficult ERP project say the same thing: the warning signs were there from the beginning. They just didn’t know what to look for.
This guide is here to change that. Not to discourage you from moving forward but to give you the reading tools that make the difference between a project that succeeds and one that goes off the rails.
Risk #1 — A poorly defined functional scope from the start
This is the most classic trap — and the most expensive one. At launch, every department expresses its needs, often without clear arbitration. The scope gradually expands, deadlines stretch, and budgets explode.
This is known as “scope creep”: the silent drift of the project scope, which sets in without anyone really noticing, and which is responsible for a large proportion of the overruns seen on ERP projects.
A poorly defined scope at the framing stage cannot be recovered during deployment. It gets paid for — in time, in budget, and in team frustration.
Risk #2 — A lack of alignment between business teams and IT
An ERP project is not an IT project. It is a business project. And yet, it is still too often driven solely by the IT department, without sufficient involvement from the operational business units.
The result: a tool that is technically well configured, but does not match the day-to-day operational realities of the teams who will actually use it. Users work around the tool, processes don’t improve, and the expected ROI never materialises.
According to a Deloitte study, a lack of alignment between IT and business teams is cited as a failure factor in 62% of complex ERP projects.
Risk #3 — Underestimating data migration
This is consistently the most underestimated phase and the leading cause of delays on ERP projects.
Migrating data to a new system is not a matter of copy-pasting files. It means cleaning years of sometimes fragmented history, normalising heterogeneous formats, validating consistency across different sources, and ensuring that no critical data is lost in the transfer.
In large organisations, this workstream can represent 30 to 40% of the total project effort a reality that many discover far too late. The consequences of a poorly handled migration are felt long after go-live: duplicates, reporting errors, loss of traceability.
Risk #4 — Treating change management as a formality
A perfectly configured ERP that is poorly adopted produces no results. This is a reality that every integrator knows and that too few companies take seriously enough.
In large organisations, bringing on board numerous, geographically dispersed teams that are accustomed to established ways of working is a considerable challenge. Resistance to change is not a matter of bad intent — it is a normal human reaction to a transformation imposed without explanation or preparation.
Projects with structured change management are up to six times more likely to achieve their objectives.
Risk #5 — Choosing the wrong integrator
This is a decision that commits your organisation for the next 5 to 10 years and it is still too often made on the wrong criteria.
Choosing an integrator based solely on price, the reputation of the software vendor, or under the pressure of a tight timeline means exposing yourself to major risks: poor understanding of your business challenges, consultant turnover mid-project, lack of availability after go-live, and no long-term vision.
A good integrator is not recognised by their rate card. They are recognised by their ability to challenge your choices, anticipate risks, and build a genuine partnership with you not just deliver a service.
Risk #6 — Underestimating the total cost of ownership
The initial budget of an ERP project is rarely the real cost. Between licences, implementation costs, team training, application maintenance, version upgrades, and specific developments, the total cost of ownership over 5 years can be 2 to 3 times higher than the initial announced budget.
This is not a reason not to invest. It is a reason to budget correctly — and to choose a partner who plays it straight on this topic from day one.
Risk #7 — Neglecting post go-live governance
Go-live is not a finish line. It is a starting line. And yet, many companies drastically reduce the resources dedicated to the project as soon as they go live — at the very moment when their teams need them most.
The first weeks after go-live are critical: users are in a learning curve, anomalies surface, and processes stabilise. Without reinforced support and rigorous governance, this period durably undermines adoption of the tool.
These risks are real — but none of them are inevitable
Every one of these risks has one thing in common : it can be anticipated, managed, and neutralised provided you are supported by experts who have already encountered them, and who know exactly when in the project to intervene.
At BHI Consulting, we have been supporting large enterprises and mid-sized companies in their ERP and EPM projects for over 15 years — across sectors as varied as industry, pharmaceuticals, construction, distribution, and banking.
Are you planning an ERP project and want to make informed decisions early on ?
👉 Contact our team for an initial consultation. We’ll have an in-depth discussion about your project, your challenges, and the best way to address them.
