“Success for a HCM project should always have equal value, if not more, placed upon compliance and business requirements, and to pay people correctly and on time.”
Point of View – By Natalee Leach
Award-Winning CEO | The Payroll Collective
‘Go-live’ is not the finish line
“We went live.” Three words that every project team celebrates.
But for employees… there is no fanfare or go live celebrations, they don’t care. They care that they get paid correctly and on time.
This week, headlines surrounding a Water Utility’s HCM implementation serves as another reminder of what happens when one of the most business-critical functions in an organisation doesn’t perform as expected from Go Live. Reports indicate employees experienced underpayments, overpayments, delayed payments and payroll uncertainty following the implementation of a new HCM and payroll platform, resulting in significant stress for employees and intervention from the Australian Services Union.
As someone who has spent decades leading payroll & HCM transformations, this story isn’t surprising. Because these situations are rarely caused by one singular issue.
They are usually the result of multiple issues and risks that were either underestimated, not well documented, accepted, or simply never escalated.
Having read through the parliamentary business questions and answers around the utility provider and their HCM Project, some interesting comments are made, which potentially provide some insights into what could have gone wrong.
When Mark Latham asked the question around how many defects have been identified in the project and how they are being addressed, the answer included “Finding items during testing is expected and normal. In large IT projects these can number in the hundreds, sometimes thousands. These are systematically addressed through fixes or workarounds as part of preparation, not as evidence of an unfit system.”
This is a prime example of deflection in my view. This comment didn’t answer the question, rather the answer is a general statement which attempts to normalise the significantly high volume of defects in large IT Projects, which is simply not the case in my view or experience.
The utility provider appears to have approximately 3,500 employees who are mostly paid under one single overarching Enterprise Agreement. To attempt to normalise potentially 1000’s of items for a company of this size and complexity seems like a diversion to me.
In my experience across decades within system transformation, 1000’s of items remaining open or where workarounds are required for a HCM project for this size business and their complexity would simply not cut the mustard. Potentially this volume of items (defects, issues, config changes, whatever you want to call them) might be seen in large scale global Tier 1 ERP implementations with 15,000 or more employees where there are adequate team members and robust processes to manage the relevant workarounds.
Without being involved in the project, nobody outside the organisation can truly know the underlying causes. However, when implementations experience failures at go-live, the contributing factors commonly include:
- The project goals and objectives become more closely aligned to timelines and budget rather than compliance, with little to no rollback plans
- The business & compliance requirements were not documented well enough within the configuration workbooks
- Testing was inadequate, and likely more issues were uncovered in the later stage of the project around Parallel testing times, leaving tight timeframes for resolution ahead of the go-live date
- Training and Comms weren’t rolled out well enough to empower end users to operate the system effectively
In this case, the issues do not appear to be directly system related. It is important to understand that a system is never a silver bullet designed solely to achieve an optimised operating model. Rather project governance, the people and the process are all significant contributing factors to ensuring system roll outs are successful.
I would also like to add, that whilst no system implementation partner is perfect, they can only work within the boundaries, instructions and contractual obligations the organisation affords them. Governance, protocol and structure are of high importance to System Implementation Partners. Project plans, people, process, compliance and business requirements are all the responsibility of the organisation. A System Implementation Partner can only advise, and guide on best practice, configure according to approved documentation provided and raise risks and issues for the business to consider. Ultimately, decisions around risk acceptance, business readiness and go-live approval rest with the organisation’s governance structure.
Go Live – At What Cost
The Most Dangerous Phrase in Any Implementation…”We’ll fix it after Go-Live.”
I’ve heard it too many times.
The idea that a HCM project is successful when it’s delivered by the deadline and on budget is great to hear for project sponsors and execs… However, success for a HCM project should always have equal value, if not more, placed upon compliance and business requirements, and to pay people correctly and on time.
Projects often become consumed by:
- Hitting milestone dates
- Protecting budgets
- Avoiding scope creep
- Meeting Steering Committee deadlines
Suddenly success becomes measured by whether the system launches…instead of whether employees are paid correctly.
The go-live date becomes the north star, quality becomes negotiable, compliance becomes assumed, and risk registers and steering committee packs become “green”.
Meanwhile the people closest to payroll & HR are often saying something very different.
What Usually Happens Behind Closed Doors
After working on some of Australia’s largest HCM implementations, I’ve noticed the same warning signs appear time and time again.
- BAU gets in the way of the best laid plans for the project – Resourcing usually remains the highest risk across the project
- Payroll & scheduling teams raise concerns – often being involved late in the project when they should be involved in the design
- Testing exposes gaps between documented requirements and real-world payroll & HR operations, resulting in rushed configuration changes late in the project
- Integrations are often the last item to be built – and often at haste to hit the deadline
- Custom manual processes and workarounds appear late in the piece, and are often not well documented
- Change Management is an afterthought. Last-minute training guides are often thrown together and delivered without consideration for the user groups resulting in poor user adoption.
Eventually in these instances, the organisation is no longer rolling out a new system – It’s implementing a collection of manual controls designed to keep the new system functioning. Creating heavy reliance on end users without adequate training or education to support the system. Often resulting in poor data in, and poor data out.
The Hidden Cost of “Go Live At All Costs”
One delayed Go-Live may inconvenience executives.
One failed payroll outcome damages trust that can take years to rebuild.
The real costs often include:
- Employee financial hardship
- Union involvement
- Fair Work exposure
- Executive reputation damage
- Media scrutiny
- Emergency remediation teams
- Months of hypercare
- Millions in additional project costs
Ironically…
Many of these costs exceed what would have been required to delay Go-Live by a few weeks to resolve the underlying issues.
Success Isn’t Measured on Go-Live Day
In our business, we measure success differently.
Success is when:
- Employees are paid accurately and on time.
- Payroll, HR & Finance teams sleep the night before pay day.
- Compliance risks are understood and controlled.
- Manual workarounds reduce—not increase.
- End users are well informed, and celebrate the system showing great user adoption
- Steering Committees make informed decisions based on quality, not optimism.
And perhaps most importantly…
Success is when nobody notices payroll at all.
Accountability – Who Owns It?
One of the biggest gaps I continue to see in major HCM implementations is that every party is accountable for delivering their component of the project, but very few are truly accountable for protecting the client’s overall outcome.
- The software vendor is responsible for delivering the platform.
- The implementation partner is responsible for delivering the project.
- Internal business teams are expected to keep the organisation operating while simultaneously supporting design, testing, decision-making and business readiness.
But who is independently challenging risks, validating payroll outcomes, ensuring compliance obligations have been fully captured, and asking the difficult question: “Is the organisation genuinely ready to go live?”
Too often, that independent client-side governance is the missing piece.
Whether you’re about to commence an implementation, are already underway, or find yourself needing to recover a project that’s gone off course, I encourage organisations to consider the following:
- Embed independent client-side advisory expertise into the project from the outset.
Engage experienced payroll and HCM specialists whose role is to challenge assumptions, ask difficult questions, advocate for compliance, and ensure quality isn’t compromised in pursuit of timelines or budget. - Obtain independent legal advice where appropriate.
Validate industrial relations, employment and legislative requirements before configuration is completed, rather than discovering compliance gaps during testing—or worse, after go-live.
Great HCM implementations don’t just happen because the software is great. They happen because:
- Governance is strong and maintained
- The right people are in the room from day one
- Testing reflects real-world operations
- Risks are known, transparent and continually monitored
- Executives are prepared to delay go-live if quality is not where it needs to be
Successful HCM implementations aren’t measured by whether the system goes live on the planned date. They’re measured by whether employees are paid accurately, on time, compliance obligations are met, and the business can confidently operate from day one.
And of course, when nobody notices payroll at all.
