A new system should help your business achieve its goals. But a poor software fit, a drifting implementation, or a difficult transition can consume substantial money before the expected benefits appear.

The amounts in these cases measure different things: money spent, development costs written off, lost sales, reduced operating profit, and damages sought in lawsuits. They are not directly comparable. Lawsuit allegations are not findings of fault. The practical lessons below are Wayferry’s interpretation of the reported events.

ERP and software failure cases $1 million to $10 million

ABM Industries: $9.1 Million Write-Off for ERP Components It Would Not Use

Reported impact: $9.1 million write-off of unused ERP software components

Source: ABM Industries, quarterly SEC filing

ABM Industries disclosed in 2021 that it had developed software components for its new ERP system that it no longer planned to incorporate. It recorded a $9.1 million noncash charge, reducing the carrying value of those components to zero.

The disclosure does not say that ABM abandoned its entire ERP implementation. The $9.1 million measures the value of specific development work it decided would not be used.

What buyers should verify

Before approving substantial configuration or development, confirm which business requirement the work serves and how the proposed design will meet it. Review those decisions as the implementation evolves, especially when one change affects other parts of the system. This helps leadership identify work that is no longer needed before more money is committed to it.

Southeast Power Group: A Claim Exceeding $2 Million After a Troubled ERP Go-Live

Reported amount: More than $2 million in damages sought

Source: Patrick Thibodeau, TechTarget

Southeast Power Group expected its SAP Business One implementation to take about a year. The project took more than four years before the system went live in 2018.

In a lawsuit against SAP and its implementation partner, Southeast alleged that data was lost or corrupted, prices were inaccurate, and the system could not produce reliable invoices or financial statements. It also reported delayed deliveries and sought more than $2 million in damages. SAP disputed the claims. The reported amount is damages sought, not an established project loss.

What buyers should verify

Before go-live, rehearse data conversion and reconcile the results. Test pricing, order fulfillment, invoicing, and financial reporting together using realistic transactions. Set measurable conditions for approving go-live, identify who can postpone it, and confirm the implementation partner’s responsibilities for resolving defects.

Worth & Company: More Than $4.5 Million Spent Before Abandoning an ERP Project

Reported amount: More than $4.5 million in purchase and implementation spending, according to its lawsuit

Source: Thomas Claburn, The Register

Mechanical contractor Worth & Company selected Oracle software for an ERP project that began in 2015. Its planned go-live dates slipped repeatedly. Worth then brought in a second implementation firm to address continuing problems before abandoning the project in 2018 and selecting another ERP.

According to its lawsuit, Worth had paid more than $4.5 million to purchase and implement the system. It sought a refund and damages. Oracle declined to comment on the lawsuit when contacted by The Register. The $4.5 million describes reported spending, not an awarded judgment.

What buyers should verify

Require demonstrations of important business requirements before signing, and carry those requirements into the implementation plan. At each major milestone, review working processes, unresolved gaps, spending, and the credible path to go-live. Agree in advance when leadership will reassess whether to continue, change course, or stop.

Oriola: ERP and Warehouse Transition Reduces Quarterly Operating Profit by €5 Million

Reported impact: €5 million reduction in quarterly adjusted operating profit

Source: Oriola, third-quarter 2017 results announcement, October 25, 2017

Oriola introduced a new ERP and warehouse management system in Finland in September 2017. Unexpected difficulties slowed warehouse picking and deliveries. The company reported approximately €4 million in lost sales because it could distribute only part of its non-pharmaceutical product range.

Oriola said the lost sales, extra shifts, and work to maintain deliveries of critical medicines together reduced its Services segment’s third-quarter adjusted operating profit by €5 million. The €4 million sales figure is part of the disruption described; it should not be added to the €5 million profit impact.

What buyers should verify

Test the ERP and warehouse system as one operating process, from receiving stock through picking and delivery. Include normal volumes, exceptions, and any products that require priority handling. Before go-live, set service-level thresholds and agree on how critical customer deliveries will continue if the new process falls short.

Major Brands: About $1.17 Million in Initial Software and Implementation Payments

Reported amount: Approximately $1.17 million in initial software, support, and implementation payments

Source: Chris Kanaracus, PCWorld

Beverage distributor Major Brands paid Epicor about $500,000 for software licensing and support and roughly $670,000 for implementation services. According to its lawsuit, the company had described its processes and transaction volumes before choosing the product, but performance problems emerged during implementation.

Major Brands alleged that routine order entry took minutes instead of seconds and that a simulation could not complete shipments or invoicing. It later spent more on hardware, while a proposed revised plan involved additional costs and a much later go-live date. These were the company’s allegations, not a finding that the software could not serve other customers.

What buyers should verify

Test the processes that matter at the volumes your business actually handles. Measure the time needed to enter orders, complete transactions, ship, and invoice. Confirm that the demonstrated performance uses the proposed software release and realistic hardware, and identify any essential capability that depends on a future release.

Woolf Enterprises: About $1.2 Million Paid Amid a Dispute Over ERP Fit

Reported amount: Approximately $1.2 million in software and maintenance payments, according to its lawsuit

Source: Chris Kanaracus, Computerworld

Agricultural company Woolf Enterprises sued Ross Systems after disagreements about what its ERP could do. Woolf alleged that capabilities it expected for detailed inventory, farm costing, accounting, and planning required more software or changes than it had anticipated.

Woolf said it had paid Ross about $1.2 million in software and maintenance fees. Ross denied fraud and attributed the dispute to mismatched expectations. The amount represents reported payments, not a quantified loss caused by the disputed functionality.

What buyers should verify

Define each important business requirement clearly enough that vendors can demonstrate it and the implementation team can test it. Record whether the product meets it through standard functionality, configuration, an add-on, or customization, along with the associated costs and commitments. A customization may be justified when it protects a competitive advantage; the decision should be deliberate and informed.

Decide before you commit to replacing your ERP

These cases show how much can be spent when a project does not deliver what the business expects. Before committing to a replacement, establish what your current ERP is holding back and whether a new system is worth the cost and disruption.

Wayferry’s standalone, fixed-fee ERP Replacement Decision Assessment gives your leadership team a documented recommendation: keep your current ERP, replace it later, prepare before replacing it, or proceed now.