Chloe Maraina is a professional who sees the digital heartbeat of an enterprise not just in rows of data, but in the visual stories they tell. As a Business Intelligence expert with a deep-rooted aptitude for data science, she has spent her career navigating the complex intersection of legacy infrastructure and the cutting-edge future of data management. Her vision for integration is grounded in the reality that behind every successful dashboard lies a massive, often turbulent effort to modernize the systems that feed it. Chloe brings a unique perspective on how organizations can bridge the gap between aging “dinosaur” systems and the agile, AI-driven architectures required to compete in today’s volatile market.
The conversation that follows explores the high-stakes world of enterprise resource planning modernization, treating these projects as high-risk operational transformations rather than simple software updates. We delve into the critical indicators that signal it is time for a change, the psychological and operational hurdles of bringing frontline users into the fold, and the importance of disciplined governance to prevent project failure. From the financial implications of technical debt to the nuanced difference between educating and merely training a workforce, this discussion provides a roadmap for turning a potential IT disaster into a strategic victory.
Organizations often find themselves clinging to systems that are a decade old or waiting until vendor support literally vanishes before they consider an upgrade. From your perspective, what are the hidden dangers of this “wait-and-see” approach?
When a company allows its ERP system to reach that five-to-ten-year mark without a refresh, they aren’t just dealing with slow software; they are performing a high-stakes balancing act on a crumbling foundation. The most immediate threat is the “moving patient” scenario where the business continues to grow while the system’s capacity remains frozen in time, leading to performance and reliability issues that can cripple daily output. We see a growing vulnerability to security threats because legacy technology lacks the robust, modern defenses found in today’s highly configurable cloud systems. Furthermore, there is a quiet but devastating loss of institutional knowledge as the system support personnel who actually understand the quirks of these older platforms begin to retire. If you wait until the software vendor officially kills support, you are essentially operating without a safety net, leaving no one on the payroll who knows how to fix the system when it inevitably breaks down during a critical business cycle.
You’ve mentioned that over half of all ERP projects are considered failures in terms of budget, timelines, or change objectives. Why is the failure rate so high, and what is the emotional toll on the teams involved?
It is a sobering reality that more than 50% of these projects miss the mark, and that failure usually stems from treating an ERP upgrade as a narrow IT task rather than a total operational transformation. When a project begins to grind critical business processes to a halt or disrupts the flow of inventory, the frustration among users turns into deep-seated resistance and a sense of betrayal toward the new technology. Employees feel the friction of losing long-standing workflows and customizations that they relied on to get their jobs done efficiently, leading to a “dual disruption” where they must learn new processes and new tools simultaneously. This creates an atmosphere of high-stakes pressure where CIOs and project leads are constantly looking over their shoulders, fearing that the massive investment of capital and organizational attention will result in a lower return than the legacy system it replaced. It’s not just a financial risk; it’s an emotional drain that can discourage an entire workforce and expose the organization to extreme operational instability at the worst possible moment.
When a company realizes their current setup isn’t delivering the ROI they expected, they face a choice between a surgical upgrade or a total replacement. How should leadership weigh the disruption of starting from scratch against the “technical debt” of an upgrade?
Deciding whether to upgrade or replace is a monumental crossroads that requires a very critical eye on the years of customizations and process workarounds that have been layered onto the legacy system. On paper, an upgrade always looks less disruptive and more affordable, but that assumption often collapses the moment you start untangling the technical debt and the “spaghetti code” of integrations that have accumulated over a decade. Total replacement, while offering a clean slate and access to modern AI-driven decision-making, brings the heavy burden of high implementation costs, prolonged business disruption, and the potential loss of that “hidden” institutional knowledge embedded in old workflows. Even private equity firms, who traditionally avoided the headaches of finance transformation, are now jumping on board with total cloud migrations because the risk of staying on an outdated, inflexible system has finally outweighed the cost of a fresh start. It’s a matter of choosing between the pain of untangling the past or the risk of building an entirely new future, and neither path should be taken without a realistic implementation plan.
Many experts argue that executive buy-in is the first step toward success, but how does a leadership team move beyond just “signing the check” to actually championing the value message of the project?
For an ERP upgrade to succeed, the CEO and CFO have to do much more than just authorize the budget; they must become the primary storytellers of the project’s “why” to ensure the message of value resonates across every department. If the executives don’t champion the transformation, the project loses its shield against internal politics and the inevitable pushback that happens when budgets get tight or timelines slip. Leadership needs to understand that they are the ones who have the final word in signing contracts, which means they must be fully briefed on the specific bottlenecks—like a slow financial close or poor data integration—that the upgrade is designed to fix. By quantifying these problems through benchmark data, executives can speak with authority about how the new system will reduce the daily friction employees experience. When the leadership team is visibly invested in the transition support from day one, it signals to the entire company that this is a mission-critical evolution, not just another IT headache.
Frontline users are often the ones most affected by these changes, yet they are sometimes the last to be consulted. Why is it so crucial to involve them from the very beginning, and how does this affect user adoption?
Frontline workers are the ones who live in the system every day, and expecting them to automatically adapt to a new platform without their input is a recipe for project disaster. If an employee is used to pulling a specific report every morning and suddenly that function is gone, the resulting discouragement can lead to a complete rejection of the new technology. By involving them early, you can identify the gaps between what the software can do and what the business actually needs, allowing you to document exactly how their daily work will change before the first line of code is even touched. When you demonstrate a direct understanding of their specific tasks—showing them exactly what process or document will replace their old routine—you alleviate a massive amount of adoption friction. This “business transformation” approach ensures that you aren’t just imposing a system, but rather providing a tool that actually fits the reality of the world they compete in.
Data mapping is frequently cited as one of the most tedious and error-prone phases of an upgrade. What practical steps can a team take to ensure their data doesn’t become a bottleneck during implementation?
The burden of data mapping almost always falls on the implementing company rather than the vendor, and failing to prepare for this reality is a major reason why projects stall. Before even touching the new system, it is vital to perform a deep cleanup of relevant data to ensure that vulnerabilities are checked and that the information being moved is actually accurate and necessary. We recommend being incredibly methodical about controlling access to new systems during this phase and running rigorous tests to prevent any hidden gaps from migrating over. After the system goes live, you have to stay on high alert for areas where the new setup might be behaving in an unanticipated way, which is why a staged and tested migration is so much safer than a “big bang” approach. If you clean the data thoroughly at the start, it moves through the new system much more efficiently, avoiding those mid-project mapping hassles that often lead to high implementation costs and reporting errors.
Scope creep and weak governance are notorious for turning months-long projects into multi-year capital drains. How can an organization build a “rock solid” requirements agreement to keep things on track?
Research from groups like Panorama Consulting confirms that scope expansion is a leading cause of budget overruns, often because stakeholders start requesting major changes in the middle of the implementation. To combat this, you need a disciplined governance structure and a change management plan that is established on day one, clearly defining who can make requests and how those changes will impact the delivery date. You have to apply a critical eye to the product demos provided by vendors, which often present a “perfect world” scenario that doesn’t account for the material changes to your core operations and people. It is often wiser to commit to an implementation without any initial modifications, using the software as delivered to see where the real pain points are before allowing a flood of customizations to take over. By having a change management process that quantifies the cost and time impact of every request, you prevent the project from entering a permanent deployment cycle where completion is always just out of reach.
You’ve made a distinction between “training” users and “educating” them. Could you elaborate on why this shift in perspective is so vital for the long-term success of an ERP?
Training is simply teaching someone which buttons to click to perform a function, but education is about helping them understand the “why” behind the new features and how they tie into the broader business objectives. When people understand the concepts behind the ERP upgrade, they are much more likely to take advantage of the advanced tools—like AI-driven reporting or improved workflow automation—that actually drive ROI. If an employee sees how a new feature directly improves their ability to succeed or meet their performance benchmarks, their resistance turns into genuine interest. It’s about moving away from a mindset of “you must use this” to a mindset of “this is how this tool helps us win.” Without that educational component, you might have a technically perfect system that nobody actually knows how to leverage for the company’s strategic benefit.
The role of an Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) firm was mentioned as a best practice. What does an “ERP-experienced advocate” bring to the table that an internal IT team might miss?
An IV&V firm acts as a necessary bridge between the organization’s goals and the technical deliverables of the project, providing an objective lens that internal teams often lose when they are deep in the trenches. These advocates confirm that the project deliverables are actually acceptable and that best practices are being followed to manage the project’s complex timeline. Because they are experienced in multiple ERP implementations, they can spot those subtle “stumbling blocks” involving changes to core business operations that an internal team might overlook until it’s too late. They help control scope and ensure that the software product being selected is the optimal fit for the documented business requirements, rather than just the one with the best marketing. Budgeting for this kind of independent oversight is essentially an insurance policy against the high-stakes failures that plague more than half of these modern transformations.
What is your forecast for the future of ERP systems as they become more integrated with AI and cloud technologies?
I forecast that we are entering an era where the ERP will no longer be a passive database of records, but a proactive, AI-driven engine that anticipates supply chain disruptions and customer needs before they manifest. As cloud ERP migration continues to rise across every industry—including once-hesitant sectors like private equity—the focus will shift from simple software efficiency to using these systems as the primary source for real-time, enterprise-wide visibility. We will see a move toward “zero-modification” implementations where companies adapt their business processes to fit the highly optimized workflows of the software, rather than the other way around. Ultimately, the successful organizations of 2026 and beyond will be those that view their ERP not as a legacy burden, but as a flexible, secure, and highly configurable asset that empowers their people to make faster, data-backed decisions. The friction of the past is giving way to a more integrated future, but only for those willing to do the hard work of operational transformation today.
