Sponsor Departure Mid-ERP Rollout
Northline Components, a 450-employee manufacturer with three plants, is eight weeks into an 18-month ERP rollout. The CFO, who is executive sponsor, announced retirement effective in 30 days. Design is complete and the pilot is scheduled at the smallest plant. A prior warehouse system failed two years ago after a rushed launch, and supervisors still cite it when resisting new tools. The production workforce is unionized; the collective bargaining agreement requires 60-day notice of process changes. The pilot plant manager has privately said the new system will slow the line. Training has not started. The steering committee meets monthly and has deferred two decisions on data ownership. The budget is fixed, with no contingency for delay. The project team has two change practitioners and no dedicated communications lead.
1. What sponsor and readiness risks should you escalate to the steering committee in the next 30 days, and in what sequence should you act?
Read the worked answer
Escalate sponsor continuity first. The CFO's retirement is not a vacancy to fill later; the sponsor carries credibility, decision rights, and relationships with plant leadership. Ask the CEO to name an active replacement within one week, preferably the operations VP, with written authority to resolve data ownership. A figurehead sponsor would leave the steering committee deadlocked. Then treat the union notice as a schedule constraint. The 60-day clause means the clock must start before any pilot that changes work. Meet the union early, explain the process change, and map the notice period into the plan. Assess readiness at the plant level. The prior warehouse failure has created low self-efficacy; supervisors cite it, so a generic communication campaign will not work. Interview supervisors and the plant manager, and run a short pulse survey on perceived support and training needs. Sequence: CEO names sponsor; sponsor resolves data ownership; union notice begins; impact assessment with plant manager; supervisor-led training design. Do not launch the pilot until the first three are complete. The risk of proceeding is repeating the prior failure with a fixed budget and no contingency.
2. The pilot plant manager says the system will slow the line. How do you handle this without dismissing the concern or letting it derail the pilot?
Read the worked answer
Treat the manager's statement as a testable impact concern, not as resistance to be overcome. Ask which transactions and shifts he expects to slow, and request cycle-time or throughput data. Run a rapid job-level impact assessment with supervisors, including time samples at the pilot plant. If the concern is confirmed, adjust the pilot: narrow scope, add temporary workarounds, or phase a feature. If it is not confirmed, share the data and ask him to validate the findings. In either case, give him a formal role in pilot readiness reviews so his credibility is used, not neutralized. Reasoning: a plant manager who says the system will slow the line may be protecting production targets, which is rational. Labeling him resistant would harden opposition among supervisors who trust him. Also, his concern may reveal a real design gap that would otherwise appear at go-live. Set a decision date with the sponsor and document the trade-off: a narrower pilot protects adoption but may delay full benefits. Recommend a go/no-go review with explicit success criteria rather than a full launch.