Why do digitalisation projects in manufacturing end up on the shelf?
Projects in manufacturing most often fail because they began with choosing technology rather than asking how the company should make decisions. A tool is bought first and only then does the company look for a use for it. I would add four other common causes: nobody consulted people working in operations, there was no single responsible person within the company, the change was introduced all at once rather than in stages, and nobody defined how success would be recognised.
The five causes in more detail
1. It began with technology. The company chooses a system because a competitor uses it or because it looked good at a trade fair. It then tries to fit the system into processes that have never been documented. The system is bent around the company, the company bends around the system, and the result is something nobody wanted.
2. Nobody consulted people working in operations. The brief was created in a management meeting. The people expected to use it every day saw the result only during training. If the new procedure creates extra work, people will find a workaround. They always do.
3. There was no single responsible person within the company. The supplier has a project manager. The company has ‘everyone’. Decisions that the customer needs to make are postponed and the project drags on. I consider the absence of a single accountable owner the most reliable warning sign of failure.
4. Everything was introduced at once. A large project with a single launch date means that every defect appears in the same week. The company is paralysed, people are frustrated, and the experience creates a memory that kills the next project three years later.
5. Nobody defined success. If nobody says at the outset, ‘This will be working when X has been reduced from five days to one,’ it is impossible to say at the end whether it succeeded. At some point, the project simply stops being discussed.
What successful companies do
- They start by describing how they want to make decisions and choose the technology only afterwards
- They consult people working in operations before writing the brief
- They have one person who is responsible for the project and has time allocated to it
- They introduce the change in stages, starting with something small that provides visible relief
- They define in writing how they will know that it works
Why quick wins are not a marketing trick
I always begin implementation with the smallest change that gives people visible relief. This is not for effect. The company needs proof that this project is different from the previous ones. Without that proof, you will not gain people's co-operation for the major change that comes later.
Your next step
The order of the steps and their division into quick wins and long-term changes is the main focus of the roadmap from the Digital Business Review.
Book a free 30-minute call →