They called me after the damage was done. $30M company. Just implemented Microsoft Dynamics. Spent $150K+ on customization with their implementation consultants. They brought me in to: Streamline their month-end close Set up processes for a potential sale in 2-3 years Help finish getting the system working properly But by the time I got there: The system was already over-customized. The close process was already broken. The damage was already done. Then new leadership came in and decided they didn't need my help after all. Here's what kills me: I could have prevented all of this. If they'd brought me in BEFORE the Dynamics implementation, here's what would have happened: Week 1-2: I'd understand how their business actually operates What their workflows are What data they actually need What decisions they're trying to make Week 3-4: I'd work WITH the implementation consultants to: Push back on unnecessary customization Redesign processes to fit system best practices Make sure they're not over-engineering simple problems Result: Spend $50-75K instead of $150K+ System that actually works Month-end close that's fast from day one Foundation ready for a sale Instead: The implementation consultants did what consultants do: Business asks for something → "Sure, we'll customize that" Every request becomes billable customization Six months later, $150K spent, system doesn't work Then they call me to fix it. But fixing a broken implementation costs almost as much as preventing it in the first place. This is the pattern I see constantly: Companies bring me in AFTER: The system is implemented (and broken) The money is spent The processes are a mess When they should bring me in BEFORE: Before choosing the system Before the implementation starts Before the consultants start customizing Why? Because I sit at the intersection of accounting + operations + technology. I can translate what the business needs into what the system should do. WITHOUT over-customizing. WITHOUT blowing the budget. WITHOUT creating a maintenance nightmare. But most companies don't know they need this until after the disaster. If you're about to implement an ERP (Dynamics, NetSuite, Sage, whatever): Bring someone in who can bridge the gap BEFORE the consultants start billing. It'll save you $50-100K and actually give you a working system. Don't call me after you've already spent $150K on customization. Call me before. #microsoftdynamics #technology #accountingsystems #implementation
Back in thr day when I specialized in recovering failed ERP Systems (specifically Navision/NAV) I offered a service where I would review the scope of work contract that a customer had recieved from their Implementation partner, and give them a list of red flags. There were two prices: 1 if they let me read the contract BEFORE they signed, $1,000. 2 if they let me read the contract AFTER they signed, $10,000. Guess which of those I sold the most?
Stephanie Vasquez This pattern is spot-on I've seen it repeatedly where implementations fail because they automated broken processes rather than redesigning them first. The most expensive mistake is customizing an ERP to replicate inefficient workflows instead of using the implementation as an opportunity to build proper accounting operations. Standard system functionality exists for a reason; when you fight it with heavy customization, you create technical debt that compounds over time.
We need more controllers / CFOs like you. It’s so refreshing when a controller / CFO is actually help drive the implementation,making key decisions, and pushing back like this instead of going along for the ride. I will also argue this failed in more than one dimension- The consultants should know better than to blindly implement what is being asked. Good consultants will know to ask better questions and not add tech debt like this. If you have an admin, part of this is their job. A good admin would also push back on design requests like this. They should look out for your best interest from a technical sustainability perspective, while also explaining limitations to the company. Because ultimately their job is to maintain the system long term. I feel like you’re going above and beyond, not only making foundational decisions on accounting / close process, but even technical design to support and improve that. If you were also teamed up with seasoned consultants and a great admin, you’d be unstoppable!!
Crazy part is, recruiters pitch skill and experience as the option that costs 20k more. But in fact that 20k is always the best investment any business can make in the success of their ERP or CRM. Literally saves companies millions in lost revenues and inefficiency.
These are such true sentiments. The importance of internal champions to work with the implementor to push back on asks and customizations is so vital. Because to folks who have been doing a job for a long time, they think they know what they want, and when consultants push back they are viewed as "not understanding the needs of the business". Aligning on those priorities before an implementation starts is so critical. We should always be asking what value a customization brings. Is it part of their 'special sauce' or just something they've always done.
This is what has kept me busy as a contracted advisory consultant and Dynamics workflow/solution architect for many Dynamics partners and end customers since 2012. Majority of Dynamics partners are product implementation partners, even the large partners. They don't marry business/management consulting practices to solve for Dynamics specific solutions. The partners that do the management consulting side of it to envision new processes and workflows, don't typically know best practices for Dynamics solutioning, documentations, and/or hand/off to implementation partner (even true with the large partners that have their own Dynamics practice to do the implementation....they work like they are separate businesses, due to competing politics and the respective partners they bill for). What's the net result: 1) a solution in Dynamics that typically does the same thing the previous tool did, at which point I have to ask, why did we bring in new technology in the 1st place 2) a solution that is harder to use or not as enjoyable...user adoption lags 3) a solution that ends up feeling like patchwork with lots of integrations 4) a client that has considered walking the partner out the door multiple times 5) bringing in a 'fixer'...