English
Best practices exist for a reason — they provide structure, reduce risk, and offer a starting point for complex ERP programs. But when they’re treated as absolute rules, they stop helping and start hurting. Real implementations — especially on Dynamics 365 Finance — are messy, human, iterative, and driven by trade-offs that
implementation-governance-en
A few years ago, I was part of a sales team preparing to pitch Dynamics 365 Finance to a potential customer. We were polishing the demo environment, aligning talking points, and getting ready to showcase functionality. Then the sales director walked in, looked at us, and said something that changed
implementation-governance-en
Every organization expects reporting in Dynamics 365 Finance to “just work” after go-live. It doesn’t. Reporting isn’t a module you turn on — it’s a discipline. And most reporting frustrations trace back to a set of structural challenges that nearly all implementations face. Below is a realistic, business-first
implementation-governance-en
One of the smartest ways to prevent delays, broken testing cycles, and go-live crises is to set up your ERP environments properly from day one. Most organizations either operate with too few (leading to collisions and rework) or too many (adding cost with no benefit). Here’s the realistic, no-nonsense
implementation-governance-en
You can master every methodology and memorize every phase gate—then real life shows up. ERP implementations (including D365 Finance) don’t fail because people forgot the theory; they wobble because reality keeps moving. These are field notes you only learn by shipping. 1) The business will be called upon
implementation-governance-en
Most CFOs assume that once a technology project starts, control naturally shifts to IT or consultants. In reality, the success of any digital transformation depends on how well Finance keeps ownership — not just of the budget, but of the vision, governance, and value delivery. 1. Where Control Is Lost In
implementation-governance-en
In every ERP implementation, one of the biggest sources of tension isn’t the technology — it’s unclear accountability. Who’s supposed to approve the solution design? Who signs off on data migration? Who leads cutover readiness? These questions often surface too late — during go-live chaos. That’s why we
English
For years, ERP projects were framed as a choice between two opposing camps: Waterfall vs. Agile. On one side, the rigor and predictability of Waterfall — stage gates, formal approvals, clear deliverables. On the other, the flexibility of Agile — iterative releases, sprints, and early feedback. Today, most ERP projects, especially large-scale
English
For many organizations, the go-live weekend marks the finish line of an ERP implementation. But in reality, it’s the most fragile phase — one where all the work of months or even years converges into a few critical days. And yet, the cutover plan — the detailed sequence of steps that
English
In most ERP programs, the words governance and management are used interchangeably — yet they mean very different things. Confusing the two often leads to unclear roles, slow decisions, and frustration between business and IT teams. Understanding the distinction is key to building a structure that supports decision-making, accountability, and long-term
English
Too often, ERP implementations are still treated as technical projects. The software works, the integrations run, and the go-live checklist is ticked off — yet users struggle to adopt it, processes remain inconsistent, and the system fails to deliver strategic value. The root cause is rarely technology. It’s governance. When
English
ERP implementations are among the most ambitious initiatives an organization can undertake. They promise streamlined processes, better data, and improved decision-making — but too often, they go over budget, fall behind schedule, or fail to deliver value. The truth is: ERP projects rarely fail because of technology alone. They fail because