The 7 Deadly Sins Of A D365 F&O Implementation

The 7 deadly sins

To begin, let’s delve into the seven cardinal errors that can transform your D365 F&O implementation from a dream of efficiency into a hell of complications, frustration, and eternal damnation.

Pride, or the illusion of self-sufficiency

Pride in D365 F&O implementations manifests as the belief that your organisation can handle everything in-house without external expertise. This overconfidence often stems from past experiences with smaller systems or a misunderstanding of the complexity involved in modern ERP implementations. It’s the dangerous assumption that your internal team, no matter how skilled in your current systems, can navigate the intricacies of D365 F&O without specialised knowledge.

This sin frequently appears early in the project, when key decision-makers underestimate the scope and complexity of the implementation. They might argue that nobody knows their business better than they do, so why involve outsiders? While it’s true that internal knowledge is crucial, it often fails to account for the technical and functional nuances of D365 F&O that can make or break an implementation.

Pride can also manifest in resistance to change, with team members insisting on doing things “the way we’ve always done them” rather than adapting to new, more efficient processes offered by D365 F&O. This stubbornness can lead to missed opportunities for improvement and unnecessary customisations.

Greed, or the rush for rapid results

Greed in a D365 F&O context is the insatiable desire for quick implementation across multiple entities or countries. It’s the unrealistic expectation of compressing timelines to achieve rapid go-lives, often driven by executive pressure or misaligned financial incentives. This sin is particularly dangerous because it often comes from the top, with C-suite executives or board members pushing for ambitious timelines without fully understanding the complexity involved.

The greed for rapid results can manifest in various ways. It might be the decision to implement D365 F&O in six countries simultaneously, with a goal to go live in all locations within the same quarter. Or it could be the insistence on a big bang approach, bringing all modules and functionalities online at once, rather than opting for a phased rollout.

This rush often leads to cutting corners in critical areas such as requirements gathering, system configuration, testing, and user training. The project team finds itself under immense pressure to deliver, leading to hasty decisions and insufficient attention to detail.

Lust, or the allure of unnecessary features

Lust in D365 F&O implementations is the irresistible attraction to shiny new features, unnecessary ISV solutions, or the promise of easy fixes. It’s the tendency to be swayed by impressive demonstrations without considering actual business needs or long-term implications. This sin often begins innocently enough, with stakeholders attending demonstrations or conferences where they’re dazzled by cutting-edge features or third-party add-ons.

The problem arises when these attractive but potentially unnecessary elements find their way into the project scope without proper evaluation. Decision makers might insist on implementing an advanced forecasting tool showcased in a demo, even if the company’s current processes don’t require such sophistication. Or they might push for an expensive ISV solution for a niche process that could be handled adequately by standard D365 F&O functionality with minor configuration.

This lust for features can also manifest in the constant pursuit of the ‘latest and greatest’, leading to scope creep as new functionalities are continually added to the project. The result is often a bloated system that’s more complex than necessary, harder to maintain, and doesn’t deliver proportional value to the business.

Envy, or the desire to replicate the past

Envy manifests as an unhealthy attachment to your legacy system, driving a desire to replicate all its features in D365 F&O. This ‘lift-and-shift’ mentality often stems from a fear of change or a misguided belief that the old way is always the best way. It’s the sin of looking backwards instead of forwards, of trying to force D365 F&O to behave exactly like the system it’s replacing, rather than embracing new and potentially more efficient ways of working.

This sin is particularly common in organisations with long-standing legacy systems that have been heavily customised over the years. Key users and stakeholders have become so accustomed to their existing processes and interfaces that they resist any change, even if it’s for the better. They might insist on replicating complex, custom-built features from the old system, even when D365 F&O offers simpler, more standardised alternatives that could streamline operations.

Envy can also manifest in constant comparisons between D365 F&O and the legacy system, with users fixating on features or reports they’ve ‘lost’ rather than focusing on the new capabilities they’ve gained. This backward-looking approach can severely limit the potential benefits of the new system and lead to unnecessary customisations that complicate future updates and upgrades.

Gluttony, or the appetite for excessive customisations

Gluttony in D365 F&O projects is the tendency to over-customise the system, force-fitting it to match every nuanced business process, regardless of how niche or infrequent. It’s the inability to say ‘no’ to stakeholder requests, even when they go against best practices. This sin often stems from a misguided belief that the ERP should conform entirely to the business, rather than the business adapting some of its processes to align with ERP best practices.

Excessive customisation can start innocently, with seemingly small requests: “Can we just change this field label?” or “We need this report to look exactly like our old one.” But these requests quickly snowball, leading to a system that bears little resemblance to standard D365 F&O. Each customisation adds complexity, not just in the initial implementation but in ongoing maintenance and future upgrades. The more you customise, the easier it is to justify the need for more customisations.

Gluttony can also manifest in the creation of overly complex workflows or approval processes that go far beyond what’s necessary for effective operations. Stakeholders might insist on replicating every exception and edge case in the system, rather than simplifying processes or handling rare scenarios manually.

Sloth, or the neglect of critical preparation

Sloth represents the laziness of delegating all responsibility to the system integrator, or reluctance to invest time and effort in crucial client-side activities. This includes neglecting business process mapping, skimping on thorough testing, or failing to cleanse and validate data properly before migration. It’s the sin of taking shortcuts in the foundational work that’s essential for a successful implementation.

This sin often manifests in a rush to move to the next phase without thoroughness, such as configuring the system before fully understanding and documenting current business processes. Organisations might skip or abbreviate the crucial step of process mapping, assuming they can figure things out as they go along. This leads to a system configuration that doesn’t truly meet business needs and may require costly rework later.

Sloth can also appear as lack of ownership. Rather than adopting comprehensive governance and conducting thorough checks throughout the project, organisations might rely on cursory checks or assume that the solution will work as intended. The attitude of “it will be fine” can lead to serious issues post-go-live.

Wrath, or the blame game

Wrath emerges when frustrations boil over, leading to finger-pointing and blame assignment. It’s the tendency to lash out at the software, the implementation partner, or even internal team members when faced with delays or issues, rather than taking ownership and working collaboratively towards solutions. This sin often rears its head when the project encounters inevitable challenges or setbacks.

Wrath can manifest in various ways. It might be executives berating the project team for missed deadlines, without considering whether the original timelines were realistic. Or it could be project managers constantly criticising the implementation partner, blaming them for every issue that arises, rather than fostering a collaborative problem-solving environment.

This sin is particularly destructive because it erodes trust and cooperation within the project team and with external partners. It creates a toxic environment where team members become defensive and may withhold information for fear of being blamed, rather than openly addressing and solving problems.

The path to redemption

Now that we’re aware of the pitfalls, let’s chart a course to redemption. How can you avoid these sins and steer your D365 F&O implementation towards success?