Three announcements in three weeks
Between the end of August and mid-September, three European industrial companies reported openly on their ERP projects. That is rare, because the public usually only learns about difficulties when they can no longer be overlooked in the financial statements. The three cases are very different, and that is exactly why a joint look is worthwhile. All details come from the companies' own publications and the business press.
Arbonia: the go-live hit order entry
The Swiss manufacturer of doors and glass reported its half-year figures on 25 August. At its German subsidiary Garant, the introduction of a new SAP system had caused problems in order entry, internal logistics and production. The company put the revenue effect at around 13 million francs and the earnings impact at around 8.4 million. A task force led directly by group management was set up, production was moved to other sites, and the forecast for the year was lowered.
The pattern is familiar: the go-live follows the plan, and the damage shows where the business is most sensitive, in orders and delivery capability. We describe which criteria a go-live should meet beforehand in our article on go-live readiness.
Zeiss: the plan fitted an earlier ambition
The Zeiss Group had decided years ago on a complete fresh build on SAP S/4HANA, moving away from an R/3 system that had grown over three decades. At the time, the CIO spoke of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to clean up and set up all processes cleanly in the standard. In September, The Register reported that Zeiss has realigned the approach: first the existing landscape is moved to S/4HANA, then the business segments build their own solutions on top. The company cited faster progress and the different requirements of its segments. It did not comment on costs.
A fresh build or moving the existing landscape is not a matter of faith. Both can be right. What is remarkable is that the fundamental decision held for years before it was corrected, although the business segments apparently could never agree on a common standard.
ITAB: the company changed faster than the project
The Swedish shop-fitting group ITAB stopped its group-wide ERP project on 10 September. It had been started several years ago to standardise processes and ways of working across the group. With the acquisition of HMY in January 2025, a broader application landscape was added. The board decided to use a combination of existing ERP systems and group-wide applications instead of a new system. According to the company, the impairment and provision amount to around 244 million Swedish kronor.
This is the most honest of the three stories, and it deserves respect. Ending a project when the situation has changed is a leadership decision. The only question is how early it can be made.
None of the three projects failed because of the software. All three had to correct decisions that no longer fitted the situation.
What the three cases have in common
The systems are different, and so are the industries. What the three cases share is that a major decision stayed in force longer than the assumptions it rested on. At Arbonia it was the go-live date, at Zeiss the principle of a fresh build, at ITAB the goal of one system for a group that no longer existed in that form. In all three cases the correction came from the very top, as a task force, a realignment or a board decision.
That is the core of project steering: not defending the decision made at the start, but checking regularly whether it still holds. And this check belongs on the customer side, because only there is it visible how the business is changing.
Three questions for every running ERP project
First: are the assumptions the project started on still valid, meaning structure, legal entities, acquisitions and priorities? Second: is the go-live measured against criteria or against a date, and who is allowed to postpone it? Third: is there someone on the customer side who steers the project rather than just administering it, with time, a mandate and a direct line to management? Anyone who answers these questions honestly every quarter does not have to explain course corrections in the half-year report.
How we support projects like these
We have been steering large ERP programmes for more than 25 years, today with Business Central as our home, including rollouts across many countries and legal entities. Companies often bring us in before things tip over, sometimes afterwards, when a second attempt is planned. In both cases we start with the same question: does the plan still fit the situation? If you would like that question asked about your project from the outside, we are happy to talk.
Frequently asked questions
Do these cases only concern large groups?
No. The pattern of an early decision outlasting its assumptions shows up in mid-sized companies just as much, often with less buffer to absorb it.
Could the problems have been seen earlier?
That cannot be judged from the outside. In general: anyone who regularly checks assumptions, go-live criteria and steering sees deviations earlier and can correct in smaller steps.
What is the first step when a project is wobbling?
A sober review of plan, assumptions and data foundation before any decision about dates or partners. It takes days, not months.
Stay on top of things without tracking everything yourself.
Once a month, Frank Maier puts into context what is moving in the ERP world. Plus the invitation to the next live webinar.
About one email a month. Unsubscribe at any time with one click. Privacy policy
