In a recent LinkedIn post, Lee McCabe discusses how ERP projects can outgrow their budgets and become costly to maintain. This article reports on McCabe’s argument and examines the commercial questions he says business leaders should ask; it is coverage of his post, not an article written by him.
McCabe describes a familiar escalation: businesses begin by seeking better systems, then take on licensing, implementation, migration, integration, customization and training costs. As he puts it:
“An ERP can turn ‘we need better systems’ into a standing order for consultants.”
Costs continue after implementation
According to McCabe, the initial budget can understate the full cost of an ERP investment. Change requests may add expense when teams discover that expected features or work were not included. Once a project has consumed substantial funds, he argues, abandoning it can also seem prohibitively expensive—encouraging boards to approve further spending in hopes of recovering value.
That dynamic can leave decision-makers weighing new costs against the money already spent. McCabe captures the logic in a short warning:
“Too far in to stop” is how a project becomes a money pit with a steering committee.
His point is not that all ERP implementations fail. McCabe explicitly calls that claim “nonsense.” Rather, he questions whether switching on the software is enough to count as success, particularly when a system remains difficult to change or requires extensive support.
Measure what happens after go-live
McCabe also draws attention to quieter disappointments: systems that launch but prove expensive to maintain, while spreadsheets continue handling work the ERP was meant to absorb. In his view, a completed rollout does not by itself show that the promised business benefits have arrived.
That distinction shifts attention from project delivery to operational results. McCabe says business owners should ask whether the investment improves efficiency in measurable ways and whether the organization has accounted for disruption and ongoing system changes.
Scrutinize assumptions and customization
McCabe assigns questions to both buyers and suppliers. Business owners, he argues, should budget for running and changing the system, as well as for realistic disruption. Suppliers should explain their assumptions, exclusions and responsibilities if delivery slips.
He also urges management to challenge customizations that preserve processes no one can justify. The recommendation treats customization as a commercial decision with consequences for cost and maintainability, rather than as an automatic response to every request.
A broader standard for investment decisions
McCabe’s closing comparison is that ERP spending deserves the same commercial scrutiny as an acquisition. That framing asks decision-makers to examine the full commitment: initial costs, future support, implementation risks and evidence of operating improvements after launch.
His post presents ERP success as more than getting software live. The test, as McCabe describes it, is whether the system delivers the business case at a sustainable cost—and whether leaders can assess that outcome before sunk costs make continued spending feel inevitable.
📝 About This Content
This article is based on insights shared by Lee McCabe on LinkedIn.
📅 Originally posted on November 3, 2026 | View original post on LinkedIn →