Embarking on a new Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) implementation is one of the most significant technological investments a business can make, yet nearly half of these projects ultimately exceed their initial budget. An implementation of a powerful system like Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central is intended to be a strategic asset, driving efficiency and growth for years to come. However, the path to a successful launch is often fraught with unexpected costs that derail even the most carefully planned financial roadmaps. The most common sources of these overruns are not technical failures but preventable issues rooted in a lack of preparation.
Why Most Business Central Projects Exceed Their Budget
The tendency for ERP projects to go over budget is a well-documented industry challenge, with a staggering 47% of organizations reporting cost overruns, according to Panorama Consulting’s ERP Report. This issue is not unique to Business Central, but its causes are remarkably consistent across platforms. The primary drivers are not unforeseen complexities but gaps in preparation, an unclear or evolving scope, and a reliance on assumptions instead of a thorough, paid discovery phase. When implementation partners must build an estimate on incomplete information, they are forced to make educated guesses about business processes, data quality, and user needs.
These assumptions often unravel once the project is underway, revealing requirements that were not accounted for in the original statement of work. While some scope changes, such as the need for a custom report or a new integration, are a normal part of any large-scale project, the most significant and avoidable overruns stem from foundational oversights. This guide provides a strategic framework for addressing these core issues, focusing on data hygiene, scope definition, process documentation, and realistic planning to ensure your Business Central implementation remains a controlled and predictable investment.
The Value of Proactive Planning and Preparation
Adopting best practices before and during the implementation of Business Central is the single most effective strategy for maintaining financial control. Proactive planning transforms the project from a reactive, problem-solving exercise into a deliberate and managed process. By investing time and internal resources upfront, organizations can identify and mitigate risks long before they have a chance to impact the budget. This foresight is not about eliminating all unexpected expenses but about minimizing surprises and ensuring that any additional costs are the result of conscious, strategic decisions rather than emergency fixes.
The benefits of this preparatory work extend far beyond the bottom line. Thorough preparation leads to significant cost savings by reducing the billable hours consultants spend on easily preventable tasks like data cleanup or requirements clarification. Moreover, it fosters greater efficiency throughout the project, as a well-defined plan allows the implementation team to proceed with configuration and development without unnecessary delays. Ultimately, this approach results in a smoother transition for end-users, who benefit from a system that is better aligned with their needs from day one, leading to higher adoption rates and a faster return on investment.
Eight Practical Steps to Control Your Implementation Costs
Successfully managing a Business Central implementation budget requires more than just a well-negotiated contract; it demands a disciplined, proactive approach grounded in practical steps. By breaking down the process into clear, actionable best practices, any organization can gain greater control over project costs and timelines. Each of the following steps addresses a common source of budget overruns, providing a blueprint for avoiding pitfalls and ensuring the project delivers on its promise without financial surprises.
Start with Clean Data Before the Project Begins
One of the most significant and avoidable drivers of cost in any ERP migration is the migration of outdated or inaccurate data. Many organizations provide their implementation partner with customer, vendor, and inventory data under the assumption that it can be “fixed later” within the new system. This approach is a critical misstep, as it forces consultants to spend valuable and expensive hours loading, validating, and testing information that is fundamentally flawed. When errors inevitably surface, the entire process must be repeated, adding days of rework to the project plan and directly inflating the final invoice. The most fiscally responsible strategy is to treat data cleanup as a prerequisite for the implementation, not a part of it. This task is far more cost-effective when handled by internal teams who possess the institutional knowledge to identify obsolete records, correct inaccuracies, and consolidate duplicates. Engaging highly skilled consultants for what amounts to data entry is an inefficient use of the project budget. By presenting your partner with a clean, validated dataset from the outset, you eliminate a major source of potential rework and allow them to focus on high-value configuration and process optimization.
Case in Point The High Cost of Repetitive Inventory Rework
A clear illustration of this principle involved a distribution company whose item master data had not been maintained for years. The dataset was riddled with outdated item numbers, incorrect product types, and duplicate entries. The client insisted on proceeding with the migration, planning to address the issues after go-live.
This decision resulted in multiple rounds of data loading for the inventory module. Each time the data was loaded, subsequent testing and validation by the client’s team revealed widespread errors that made the system unusable. Consequently, the consultants had to purge the incorrect data and repeat the entire loading and validation cycle, a process that added significant, entirely avoidable costs and several weeks of delay to the project timeline.
Refine and Streamline Your Item Master
For manufacturing and distribution companies, the item master is the foundational dataset upon which much of the ERP system is built. It is also a frequent source of project delays and budget creep, especially when it contains years of accumulated, unmanaged data. An implementation provides the perfect opportunity to streamline this critical asset, but this work must be prioritized early in the planning phase. Taking the time to refine the item master before the project gains momentum is an investment that pays immediate dividends.
The cleanup process should be methodical and comprehensive. This includes identifying and removing obsolete items that have not been sold or used in years, correcting outdated item types to ensure accurate financial reporting, and consolidating duplicate records that complicate inventory management and sales analysis. When consultants are forced to pause configuration work to wait for decisions on item data, the project timeline stretches and costs escalate. A clean, well-organized item master, in contrast, provides a solid foundation for an efficient and on-budget implementation.
Example How an Updated Item Master Prevents Delays
Consider an implementation where the partner is ready to configure inventory valuation methods and purchasing controls. If the item master is clean and accurate, they can proceed immediately, applying the correct settings based on clearly defined item types. This allows the project to maintain its planned velocity, moving seamlessly from one configuration task to the next.
In contrast, if the item master is disorganized, the project grinds to a halt. The consultants cannot apply rules to items with incorrect or missing types, forcing them to stop work and await clarification from the client. This waiting period consumes billable hours and creates a bottleneck that delays subsequent project phases, such as training and user acceptance testing, ultimately increasing the total cost.
Consolidate Customer and Vendor Records
Just as with the item master, bloated customer and vendor lists are a common source of unnecessary implementation costs. Over time, these lists often become cluttered with inactive accounts, duplicate entries, and outdated contact information. Migrating this “dirty” data into a new Business Central environment not only adds needless work to the migration process but also perpetuates inefficiencies in the new system. Paying premium consulting rates to have an implementation partner sort through thousands of outdated records is a poor allocation of financial resources.
A simple, internally-led data hygiene initiative can yield substantial savings. Before handing over the data for migration, organizations should conduct a thorough review to remove accounts that have been inactive for an extended period, merge duplicate customer or vendor records into a single master record, and verify critical billing and shipping details. This straightforward preparation is one of the easiest and most effective ways to reduce billable hours and prevent avoidable budget overruns.
Real-World Impact Saving Billable Hours on Simple Data Tasks
The value of this internal effort becomes clear when considering the alternative. An implementation partner faced with a list of 10,000 customers, 4,000 of whom are inactive duplicates or have incomplete addresses, must dedicate significant time to data manipulation before the migration can even begin. This work, while necessary, does not require the strategic expertise of an ERP consultant and could be completed at a much lower cost by an internal administrator.
By performing this cleanup ahead of time, a company ensures that the partner’s time is spent on tasks that truly leverage their expertise, such as configuring posting groups, setting up credit limits, and optimizing workflows. This strategic division of labor keeps the project focused on high-value activities and protects the budget from being consumed by elementary data-cleansing tasks.
Define the Full User Scope from the Start
One of the most disruptive and costly issues in any ERP project is “scope creep,” and a frequent cause is the late addition of new departments or user groups. A project may be initially scoped and budgeted as a purely financial system replacement, only for other departments to see the capabilities of Business Central and demand inclusion midway through the implementation. While expanding the system’s footprint can deliver greater value to the organization, introducing these changes after the project is underway inevitably leads to significant cost increases and timeline extensions. To prevent this, it is essential to identify all potential user groups during the initial planning and discovery phase. Leadership from every department—including accounting, operations, warehouse management, field service, and sales—should be involved in early discussions to determine who will need access to the system and what their functional requirements will be. This holistic, upfront approach ensures that the project’s scope, budget, and timeline are based on a complete understanding of the organization’s needs from the very beginning.
Scenario When an Accounting Project Expands to the Warehouse
A classic example of this scenario involved a client migrating from an older system like Dynamics GP, which they used exclusively for accounting functions. Their warehouse operations were managed entirely through spreadsheets and manual processes. The initial Business Central project was scoped and priced solely to replace the accounting functionality.
However, once the project began and the operations team witnessed a demonstration of Business Central’s integrated warehouse management capabilities, they immediately recognized the potential for efficiency gains. The request to add full warehouse functionality—including receiving, put-away, picking, and shipping—fundamentally changed the project, turning a straightforward financial implementation into a far more complex operational one and significantly expanding its scope and cost.
Document Your Core Business Processes
Many established organizations operate on a foundation of undocumented “tribal knowledge,” where critical business processes exist only in the minds of long-tenured employees. While this may be functional in a stable environment, it becomes a major impediment during an ERP implementation. When consultants ask for details on how a process works and the answer requires tracking down multiple people for clarification, the project slows to a crawl while billable hours continue to accumulate. To accelerate the implementation and control costs, it is vital to document core business workflows before the project’s training phase begins. Key processes such as order-to-cash, procure-to-pay, and inventory management should be clearly mapped out, detailing each step, role, and decision point. This documentation serves as a critical blueprint, enabling consultants to configure the system accurately and efficiently to reflect how the business actually operates.
How Clear Documentation Accelerates Configuration and Training
Well-documented processes provide the clarity consultants need to configure Business Central faster and with fewer errors. Instead of relying on ad-hoc conversations, they can use the process maps as a guide to set up workflows, permissions, and reporting structures correctly the first time. This direct translation of business requirements into system configuration removes ambiguity and dramatically reduces the need for costly rework.
Furthermore, this documentation becomes an invaluable asset during user training. Trainers can design sessions that are directly aligned with the company’s established workflows, making the content more relevant and easier for users to understand. This tailored approach improves knowledge retention, boosts user confidence, and reduces the need for expensive post-go-live support and supplemental training sessions.
Maintain a Flexible Go-Live Timeline
In the rush to complete a project, many companies fixate on an arbitrary go-live date, often tied more to internal preferences than to critical business milestones. While having a target is important for maintaining momentum, rigidly adhering to an unrealistic date can be a costly mistake. Rushing an implementation often leads to incomplete setups, inadequately tested configurations, and a stressed, unprepared team. The subsequent post-launch fixes required to address these shortcomings can quickly inflate the project’s total cost and generate significant user frustration.
If the existing ERP system is functional, there is usually time to get the new implementation right. If the system configuration is not complete or the team is not fully prepared, delaying the go-live is a financially prudent decision. It is far better to move the date and launch a stable, well-tested system than to force a messy rollout that requires extensive and expensive emergency support. Flexibility in the timeline is a key component of sound budgetary control and is essential for a smooth, successful transition.
The Hidden Costs of a Forced and Messy Rollout
The consequences of a rushed launch extend beyond the immediate need for technical fixes. A chaotic go-live can erode user confidence in the new system from day one, leading to poor adoption rates and resistance to change. When users encounter persistent errors or find that the system does not support their daily tasks, their frustration can disrupt critical business operations, impacting everything from order fulfillment to customer billing.
These operational disruptions and the decline in morale carry significant hidden costs. The immediate financial impact comes from the need to purchase emergency support blocks from the implementation partner to extinguish fires that a more methodical rollout would have prevented. Forcing a launch before the system and the team are ready transforms a planned investment into an unpredictable and stressful expense.
Plan Realistically for User Training Needs
A common oversight in project budgeting is the underestimation of the time, effort, and customization required for effective user training. Many companies plan for a generic, one-size-fits-all training program, failing to account for the diverse needs and skill levels across their organization. This approach almost always proves inadequate, leading to mid-project requests for additional training blocks and the accumulation of extra billable hours that were not included in the original estimate.
Effective training planning requires a more nuanced approach. It is crucial to honestly assess the user base and acknowledge that different roles require different types of training. Furthermore, employees who have used the same legacy system for decades will likely need more time and personalized support to adapt than those who are more comfortable with modern software. Planning for these varying needs from the start helps create a more accurate training budget and avoids costly surprises down the road.
Why a One-Size-Fits-All Training Approach Inflates Costs
The flaw in a uniform training strategy is that it fails to address the specific challenges faced by different user groups. For instance, an accountant may need in-depth training on financial modules, while a warehouse manager requires hands-on instruction for inventory and shipping functions. Providing both with the same general overview is inefficient and leaves critical knowledge gaps.
Similarly, veteran employees often require a more patient and repetitive training approach to unlearn old habits and build confidence with a new interface. Failing to budget for this additional support means that once the initial training block is exhausted, the project manager is left with a choice: either purchase more training at an additional cost or risk a go-live with an unprepared team. Both outcomes negatively impact the project’s success and its budget.
Establish a Contingency Budget for Scope Changes
Even with the most meticulous planning, some changes in scope are a normal and healthy part of a modern ERP implementation. As the project progresses, the team may uncover a business-critical report that was overlooked, identify a necessary integration with another system, or realize that a core process is more complex than originally understood. Acknowledging the likelihood of such discoveries and planning for them financially is a hallmark of a well-managed project. Experienced project managers recommend setting aside a contingency fund to manage these inevitable adjustments without derailing the entire budget. A common guideline is to budget an additional 25% to 50% of the original estimate, depending on the project’s complexity. This fund should be held internally and used judiciously to approve legitimate scope changes that add value to the business, providing a crucial buffer against unforeseen but necessary expenses.
From Legacy Customizations to Future Needs
A reliable indicator of the need for a healthy contingency is the state of the company’s legacy ERP system. If the old system was heavily customized to support unique business processes, it is highly probable that similar requirements will surface during the Business Central implementation. While Business Central offers extensive standard functionality, it is unrealistic to assume it will meet every specialized need out of the box.
Budgeting for these potential customizations from the outset is a strategic move that ensures the new system can fully support critical business operations. Rather than treating these needs as unexpected problems, a contingency budget allows the organization to address them as planned investments. This foresight prevents the financial strain and difficult decisions that arise when essential requirements emerge without the funds to accommodate them.
Final Takeaway A Successful Implementation Is a Strategic Investment
The detailed exploration of these best practices revealed that a well-planned Business Central implementation was a long-term strategic asset, and that proactive preparation served as the most effective defense against cost overruns. The success of such a project was not determined at go-live but was forged in the early stages of planning, data cleansing, and process definition. By addressing these foundational elements, organizations positioned themselves for a predictable and controlled implementation journey.
Ultimately, the guidance provided showed that organizations preparing for an ERP implementation benefited immensely from establishing a realistic budget, committing to internal data governance, and fostering clear, continuous communication with their implementation partner. The principles discussed were not just about saving money; they were about investing resources wisely to build a robust system that would support business growth and efficiency for years to come.