I recently received a survey that looked at ERP Implementation strategies. The results made sense to me.  It said the three most widely discussed are:

Big bang – Implementation happens in a single instance. All users move to the new system on a given date.

Phased rollout – Changeover occurs in phases over an extended period of time. Users move onto new system in a series of steps.

Parallel adoption – Both the legacy and new ERP system run at the same time. Users learn the new system while working on the old.

It turns out that 40% used a phased roll out, 38% used the big bang approach, 11% used a combo of biog bang and phased, and only 9% used parallel adoption.

Now I have yet to hear of a broad Enterprise 2.0 adoption effort that did not use some form of parallel adoption. The enterprise 2.0 approach is likely lead by example, internal viral marketing, and demonstrate value through use rather than the top down edict than is implicit, if not explicit in the ERP efforts.

ERP provides infrastructure that often requires work processes to confound to the software structure.  Enterprise 2.0 is often attempting to provide tools that will conform to your work practices.  With ERP adoption is not the issue, except in the 9% of cases where parallel adoption is used, With ERP the issue is implementation, as people are generally required to use the system. The study stated than 83% of the ERP implementations studied were considered successful.

Despite is low use, parallel adoption is thought to be the least risky ERP implementation process. “It includes running both the old and new ERP system at the same time. This way users can learn the new system while performing regular work activities on the old system. After requirements for the new system are met, then the legacy system is decommissioned.” It is also the most expensive method because of the heavier requirements and this accounts for its lower use.

I think the first lesson is not to mimic ERP as it is very different as described above. However, looking for opportunities to reduce and gradually eliminate parallel adoption is good strategy as you can potentially reduce costs and have the enterprise 2.0 become the “way of doing business.”

I was involved in one example were a blog was substituted for email and attachments as the way to support collaboration by a task force. The members had no choice and it was not presented as a big deal, just a switch in tools.  Soon the increased value of using a transparent tool became apparent to the users and there was not a major adoption problem. It was basically a “big bang” approach on a micro-level.  I guess you might refer to this as phased approach in looking at the enterprise context.  So another lesson for me is looking for ways to introduce enterprise 2.0 as the way of doing business or a task without a look of fanfare.  Sometimes the fanfare can get in the way, especially when old ways of doing business remain an option.

What do you see that enterprise 2.0 can learn form ERP, if anything?