Why Go Live Is the Wrong Measure of ERP Success

Why Go Live Is the Wrong Measure of ERP Success

Across finance transformations, one moment is consistently treated as the finish line. Go live.

Months or years of effort culminate in a weekend cutover. Systems switch. Transactions post. The programme team celebrates. Leadership declares success.

Yet for many CFOs, the uncomfortable reality emerges only after this moment. Despite a successful go live, the finance function is no faster, no cheaper, and no more insightful than before.

The problem is not execution quality. It is the metric itself.

Go live is a technical milestone. It is a poor proxy for finance success.

Why organisations fixate on go live

Go live dominates ERP programmes because it is tangible, binary, and defensible.

The system is either live or it is not. Transactions either post or they fail. Auditors can confirm continuity. Programme dashboards turn green.

For sponsors under pressure, go live offers closure. It marks the end of delivery risk and the beginning of operational ownership.

But this clarity is deceptive.

Go live measures system survivability, not business performance. It answers the question of whether the organisation can transact. It says nothing about whether finance is operating better.

Finance value is created after the cutover

Most finance value sits downstream of go live.

Cycle time reduction, cost to serve improvements, control effectiveness, and decision support quality all depend on how the system is used, governed, and optimised over time.

Immediately after go live, finance teams are in stabilisation mode. They prioritise continuity over improvement. Manual checks increase. Workarounds emerge. Performance temporarily deteriorates.

Judging success at this point is akin to judging a restructuring on day one.

Yet many organisations do exactly that. Once the system is stable, attention shifts elsewhere and the programme is closed.

The phase where value should be engineered is never properly funded.

Go live rewards the wrong behaviours

When go live is the primary success metric, it shapes behaviour throughout the programme.

Teams optimise for scope containment rather than outcome improvement. Design decisions favour familiarity over effectiveness. Difficult operating model choices are deferred to reduce delivery risk.

Controls are weakened to avoid delays. Reporting is simplified to meet deadlines. Process improvements are postponed in favour of configuration speed.

These are rational responses to the metric in place.

But they systematically trade long term finance value for short term delivery certainty.

The illusion of standardisation

ERP programmes often equate standardisation with value.

At go live, processes appear standardised. Transaction paths are defined. Variants are removed.

In practice, standardisation at configuration level does not guarantee standardisation in execution.

Without performance visibility and accountability, teams quickly reintroduce variation through journals, spreadsheets, and local practices.

The system remains standard. The operation does not.

Go live confirms the former, not the latter.

Why benefits cases rarely survive contact with reality

Most ERP business cases are approved long before go live. Benefits are forecast using high level assumptions. Once funding is secured, those assumptions are rarely revisited.

Post go live, few organisations actively track whether benefits are being realised.

Close cycles may still be long. Headcount may not reduce. Forecast accuracy may not improve.

These gaps are often rationalised as change fatigue or external pressure. The benefits case quietly expires.

Go live is achieved. Value is assumed.

What high performing CFOs measure instead

CFOs who consistently extract value from ERP investments measure success differently.

They define a small number of finance outcomes that matter. Close duration. Cost per invoice. Percentage of automated postings. Control exceptions. Forecast accuracy.

They establish baselines before implementation and track performance relentlessly after go live.

They treat stabilisation as a transition phase, not an endpoint. Optimisation is funded, governed, and resourced as a formal programme.

Most importantly, accountability for value sits with finance leadership, not the programme office.

Reframing go live as the starting point

This does not mean go live is unimportant. It is essential. But it should be reframed.

Go live is the moment the organisation earns the right to start realising value.

It marks the shift from delivery risk to performance risk. From system correctness to operational effectiveness.

Programmes that recognise this plan differently. They design post go live optimisation upfront. They retain core capability. They instrument the finance function with data and insight.

They do not declare victory prematurely.

A final reflection for finance leaders

ERP programmes fail in subtle ways.

They deliver what was promised. A new system. On time. On budget.

What they fail to deliver is what finance leaders actually care about. Better performance. Better control. Better decisions.

As long as go live remains the primary measure of success, this pattern will persist.

CFOs who want a different outcome must change the question.

Not did the system go live.

But did finance get better.