This paper examines a case study of enterprise resource planning (ERP) software implementation in an Australian pharmaceutical company in 2009. The project was budgeted at $65 million with expectations to save $40 million annually, but ultimately failed to meet stakeholder expectations across cost, schedule, and technical performance dimensions. The final implementation cost reached approximately $100 million—a $35 million overrun—took 2.5 years instead of the planned one year, and resulted in complete technical failure when the system could not handle required transaction volumes. The analysis applies project management frameworks and success criteria to understand how and why this implementation derailed, offering insights into the challenges of large-scale ERP deployments in complex supply chain environments.
This report presents the results of an analysis of a project that involved designing and implementing a customized enterprise resource planning (ERP) software package in an Australian pharmaceutical company in 2009. The implementation represented a significant organizational investment aimed at modernizing core supply chain and inventory management processes. Understanding this case requires situating the project within established project management frameworks and examining how it failed to meet organizational objectives despite substantial resource allocation.
According to the Project Management Institute (PMI), the initiative met the definition of a project as "a temporary endeavour to create a unique product" (PMI, 2013, p. 3). Stretton (1983) identified several characteristics of this engagement, including that it was "unique, finite, multi-disciplinary, complex, dynamic and high risk." Using the classification system of Wideman and Shenhar (2001), the project qualified as "medium tech" in the sense that it involved utilizing mostly established technology along with a new component—the ERP software itself. According to the classification system of Archibald (2003, pp. 35–36), it was formally categorized as an information systems (software) project, a designation that carries implications for risk, resource requirements, and success metrics.
Projects have primary and secondary stakeholders (Cleland, 1999, p. 167). In this initiative, the primary stakeholders were the shareholders of the firm, its employees, and its creditors. Each group had distinct interests: shareholders sought return on investment and operational efficiency; employees required system usability and job security; and creditors depended on the company's financial stability and cash flow management.
Due to increasing competition, the pharmaceutical firm faced significant difficulty managing its supply chain activities efficiently while maintaining cost discipline. The company therefore decided to implement ERP software to address these challenges comprehensively. The system was designed to cover the entire supply chain, including warehouses, inventory management systems, customer service, shipping, and handling. The implementation was budgeted at approximately $65 million, with an expected return of around $40 million annually in cost savings. This financial projection provided the primary justification for the substantial capital expenditure and organizational disruption that ERP adoption would entail. Enterprise resource planning systems typically promise such benefits by integrating disparate operational functions into a unified data environment.
Baker (1997, p. 26) defines project success as the ability of a project to meet the "evolving expectations of significant project stakeholders, in the areas of cost, schedule, technical performance and politics." Using this framework, the project was a clear failure, having failed to satisfy expectations in three major areas. The final cost of the project reached approximately $100 million, excluding additional losses incurred due to technical failure—a budget overrun of nearly $35 million, or 54 percent above the original estimate. The entire project was scheduled for completion within one year, but execution stretched to approximately 2.5 years, representing a 150 percent schedule slip. Most critically, the newly installed ERP system proved incapable of handling the high volume of transactions per day required by company operations, resulting in complete technical failure and substantial additional losses. These technical deficiencies undermined the core value proposition of the implementation and damaged stakeholder confidence in both the system and the project team.
This case demonstrates the substantial risks inherent in large-scale ERP implementations, particularly when projects encounter compounding failures in cost management, schedule discipline, and technical architecture. The divergence between planned and actual outcomes across all three dimensions—cost overruns of $35 million, schedule delays of 1.5 years, and complete technical inadequacy—illustrates how implementation projects require careful alignment between financial estimation, scheduling realism, technical capacity planning, and stakeholder engagement to achieve success as defined by organizational expectations.
You’re 97% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.