ERP Area: HR/Human Capital Management
Software: UKG
Products Implemented: HCM (HR Core),Talent Management (Learning, Performance, Succession Planning, Social Collaboration),Recruiting / Onboarding, Benefits, Payroll, Employee Surveys / Sentiment, Employee Case Management
Company Size: 1 – 5k Employees / Industry: Other
Regions in Scope: North America
Reviewer Role: Decision Maker
Consultant Recognized: Angela Clish
Project(s) in Scope: Initial deployment (Phase 1),Add-on deployment (Phase 2, and not in the original SOW),Optimization / Ongoing support services,Training
Systems Expertise 5 out of 5
Implementation Process 5 out of 5
Responsiveness 5 out of 5
Quality of Consultants 5 out of 5
Flexibility / Adaptability 5 out of 5
SPEED & COST
Speed vs. Expectations: 4x+ time expected
Cost vs. Expectations: 1.25x cost budgeted
SCOPING ACCURACY:
How well did your implementation partner scope the work and understand your needs during the pre-sales process?
Partner scoped and quoted the work precisely
Was the implementation team who actually performed the work the same team that was proposed?
Slight change in team
What “Lessons Learned” would you provide to others implementing with this partner / software? What else would you tell us about your project experience?
1. I Needed to Be Clearer on Business Requirements Upfront
I learned that if I didn’t clearly articulate our HR processes and desired outcomes, the consultant defaulted to standard system configurations. The more precise I was about workflows, approvals, reporting needs, and compliance requirements, the better the outcomes.
Takeaway: Preparation and documented requirements save time and rework.
2. I Had to Own the Business Decisions
The consultant was strong technically, but they weren’t positioned to define our HR strategy or internal policies. When I expected them to “advise” on process direction without clear guardrails, it created misalignment.
Takeaway: The consultant configures the system; I own the business model and decisions.
3. Communication Needed to Be More Structured
Ad hoc conversations led to misunderstandings about scope and timelines. Once we formalized status meetings, decision logs, and change tracking, the partnership improved significantly.
Takeaway: Structure reduces friction.
4. Data Was More Complex Than Expected
Data migration and cleanup required much more internal effort than I initially anticipated. The consultant could map and load data, but internal validation and correction were our responsibility.
Takeaway: Data ownership stays internal—even with external support.
5. Change Management Required More Focus
I realized that technical implementation alone wasn’t enough. Managers and employees needed clearer communication and training to adopt the new system.
Takeaway: Technology implementation ≠ organizational adoption.
6. Scope Control Was Critical
When additional requests were added without formal review, timelines and costs shifted. I learned the importance of disciplined scope management.
Takeaway: Every “small change” has downstream impact.
7. Knowledge Transfer Needed to Be Intentional
If I didn’t actively request documentation and walkthroughs, institutional knowledge stayed with the consultant.
Takeaway: Build internal capability, not dependency.
8. The Partnership Worked Best When It Was Collaborative
The most successful phases were when we treated each other as strategic partners rather than vendor/client. Clear accountability combined with mutual respect improved outcomes.
Takeaway: Tone and collaboration matter as much as technical expertise.
