When it comes to resource management software implementation, the technical parts are usually thorough, including data migration, system integrations, user training, and dashboard configuration.
But three months in, decisions about the system take longer than they should. Your IT team and resource managers aren't aligned on who handles what. The Super User is becoming a bottleneck. Different departments are using the platform inconsistently.
Most firms spend 80% of implementation effort on technical configuration and 20% on governance. But firms that succeed do things differently.
To understand more, we spoke with Andre Franklin from Linked Workforce, who works with professional services firms on resource management transformation, about why implementations struggle and what successful firms do differently.
How most firms tackle resource management software implementation
Here's what a typical resource management implementation looks like:
Your team focuses on data migration, such as pulling information from spreadsheets and legacy systems into the new platform. You map integrations with your CRM, HR system, and financial software. IT configures dashboards and reports. You schedule training sessions on features and workflows. There's testing, troubleshooting, and refinement.
This work is necessary. Clean data matters. Working integrations matter. Trained users matter.
But as Andre points out, firms often misidentify where the real challenge lies: "The biggest mistake I see during RM implementations is assuming the software will create alignment on its own. Most challenges are organisational rather than technical in nature."
Implementation plans allocate months to technical configuration and maybe a week (often less) to the organisational questions.
The irony? Studies show that projects with clear requirements and governance documented before development starts are 97% more likely to succeed. Yet most firms treat this as an afterthought.
By the time you reach go-live, you've spent hundreds of hours on the technical side. However, the governance conversation often occurs in passing, if at all.
The 20% that gets rushed (or skipped entirely)
While firms meticulously plan their technical implementation, a different set of questions gets minimal attention:
- Who owns resource management decisions?
- Where does IT responsibility end and business ownership begin?
- What authority do Super Users have?
- How are scheduling conflicts resolved?
- Who maintains data quality?
These seem like details that will sort themselves out once the system is live. They don't.
"Many firms move too quickly through the governance design phase," Andre explains. "They configure screens and workflows but postpone decisions about ownership, such as who approves changes, who maintains data quality, how skills are governed, and how feedback loops will work."
The assumption is that these are admin questions that can wait. In reality, they're absolutely key.
"Those are the 20% of design conversations that get skipped because they seem administrative, yet they drive 80% of adoption issues later," says Andre. "Without agreed roles and escalation paths, every small change becomes a debate after go-live."
In fact, Gartner estimates that up to 70% of ERP implementations fail to achieve their intended outcomes, often due to ineffective or absent process governance. The technical work gets done. The governance conversation doesn't.
Without clarity on these questions, you have what Andre calls "a shared inbox rather than a shared system"... where nobody's quite sure who's responsible for what.
What this looks like in practice
Andre shared a story that illustrates exactly how this plays out.
The Setup
He worked with a firm that had identified an exceptional Super User—someone deeply committed, knowledgeable, and determined to make the new system work. When they discussed long-term system administration, this person immediately volunteered to own everything: adding and removing users, monitoring security, managing integrations, configuring workflows.
Their intentions were good.
The Problem
"Within weeks they were overloaded, decisions slowed, and other users hesitated to act without their approval," Andre recalls.
The Super User had become a single point of failure. Every question, every change request, every minor configuration issue went through one person. What seemed helpful—someone taking ownership—had created a bottleneck that was slowing down the entire implementation.
The Solution
The fix wasn't to find a different Super User or add more resources. It was to clarify roles.
"We stepped back and drafted a simple RACI," says Andre. "IT assumed responsibility for technical administration and security protocols, while the Super User focused on business 745workflows and user enablement."
RACI is a simple framework that clarifies who is Responsible for doing the work, who is Accountable for the outcome, who needs to be Consulted, and who should be Informed. In this case, it separated technical administration (IT's domain) from business workflow support (the Super User's focus).
The Result
The change was immediate. Requests moved faster because people knew where to direct them. The Super User regained capacity to actually coach other users instead of handling every administrative task. Adoption increased.
"Clarity turned one overworked champion into a sustainable partnership between IT and the business," Andre explains.
This wasn't a complex organizational transformation. It was a two-hour conversation with a lasting impact.
The four areas that determine implementation success
The organisational clarity that successful implementations establish early isn't abstract. It comes down to four specific areas.
1. Decision rights
Who makes scheduling decisions when there's a conflict between departments? Who approves changes to system configuration? Who resolves disputes about resource allocation?
These questions need clear answers before go-live, not three months in when a contentious decision is holding up a client project.
2. Ownership and accountability
Who owns data quality? If resource information is inaccurate or outdated, whose job is it to fix that? Who maintains system configuration as your needs evolve? Who ensures that scheduling policies are actually being followed?
Without clear ownership, these responsibilities fall through the cracks—or they all land on your overwhelmed Super User.
3. IT and business collaboration
IT owns technical infrastructure, security, and system integrations. Business owns workflows, scheduling logic, and resource policies. That much is usually clear.
What's less clear is where they need to coordinate. How are decisions made when both technical and business considerations are involved? What's the process when business needs require technical changes?
"Without clearly defined ownership of who manages what—workflows, permissions, data quality, and decisions—the tool quickly becomes a shared inbox rather than a shared system," Andre notes.
4. Super user support structure
What are Super Users actually responsible for? Day-to-day user support and training, certainly. But are they responsible for technical troubleshooting? Policy decisions? System configuration?
Just as important: what support do they receive from IT and from resource management leaders? How do they escalate issues that are beyond their scope?
Clear boundaries prevent burnout and bottlenecks. "The firms that succeed treat implementation as a change in how people collaborate, not just where they click," says Andre.
These four areas aren't complex organizational theory. They're practical operational questions that can be answered in a single workshop—if you make time for it in week one instead of figuring it out in month six.
How to get the implementation ratio right
The good news? Getting this right doesn't require months of work. You simply need to prioritise governance at the start of implementation.
Andre adds: "Roles and decision rights should be clarified in the first weeks of implementation. When governance is established early, Super Users, IT, and leadership all know what they're accountable for, and decisions can be practiced during testing instead of discovered afterward."
Here's what that actually looks like in practice:
Week 0 (Pre-kickoff): Identify your four key roles—Executive Sponsor, Resource Management Leader, IT Partner, and Super User(s). Make sure everyone understands they'll need to participate in a governance workshop.
Week 1: Facilitate the governance conversation. Use a simple RACI framework to clarify who's Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed for key areas: decision rights, data quality, system configuration, user support, and IT/business collaboration. Document it in one page.
Weeks 2-8: Proceed with technical implementation. Everyone knows who owns what, so configuration decisions happen quickly and requests go to the right people.
Month 3 onwards: Revisit your governance framework as the system matures and your team's needs evolve.
The alternative? "When it's delayed until post-go-live, the system launches with ambiguity baked in—and every permission request or workflow tweak becomes urgent rework," Andre explains. "Sorting it out early prevents confusion and builds confidence."
How Retain supports resource management software implementation
Retain's platform is designed to support the governance structures that successful implementations establish early, without requiring perfection from day one.
For instance, Role-based permissions let you define who can view, edit, or approve different aspects of resource management. This directly supports the RACI framework. Your IT team can have technical administration access, Super Users can manage workflows and support, and resource management leaders can own scheduling decisions, all within the same system.
The platform's transparent AI matching helps build trust during adoption. When the system suggests resources for roles, it shows you why—the skills, experience, and availability that informed the recommendation. People don't need to trust a "black box." They can see the reasoning, which makes it easier for teams to adopt new ways of working.
Retain's Skills+ taxonomy, powered by Lightcast, creates a common language across departments. When Audit, Tax, and Advisory all use the same skills framework, cross-department collaboration becomes simpler. The governance conversations about who owns skills data and how skills are verified become easier when everyone's working from the same foundation.
Workflows and permissions can evolve as your team's capabilities mature. You don't need to define every nuance of governance before go-live. Start with clear basics, such as who owns what and how decisions get made, then simply refine from there as you learn what works.
The bottom line: flip the ratio
Of course, the technical side of resource management implementation matters. You obviously need clean data, working integrations, and trained users.
But that's not what separates successful implementations from struggling ones.
The difference is spending week one clarifying who owns what, how decisions get made, and where IT and business responsibilities intersect. It's a two-hour workshop that prevents six months of confusion.
Andre's final piece of advice gets to the heart of it: "Make sure everyone is crystal clear about how their roles—and ways of working—will need to change. Resource management implementations bring together multiple teams that often have very different workflows but must now operate within a shared system."
He continues: "Often, one of the goals of transformation is standardisation—aligning how different teams work so the organisation can operate more efficiently. That alignment sometimes means giving up certain local or team-specific approaches to gain consistency and visibility across the firm."
This is why the governance conversation matters so much. "When it's unclear what will change, where harmony is required, or who ultimately decides how work will be performed going forward, the system implementation can quickly become a battleground for 'how we do our jobs,'" says Andre. "Clarity up front prevents that. It turns what could feel like a loss of control into a shared opportunity to work smarter together."
Most firms spend 80% of their implementation effort on technical configuration and 20% on organisational clarity.
The firms that succeed flip that ratio.
Planning a resource management implementation? The firms that succeed establish governance clarity in week one. Book a demo to see how Retain supports role-based permissions, transparent workflows, and organisational evolution from day one.
