Business Central
Ina Rogalev
6. May 2026
The current Forrester study on Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central delivers impressive numbers: 209% ROI, payback in less than six months, and significant productivity gains in finance, reporting, and operations. Companies reduce manual processes, consolidate legacy systems, and create a unified data foundation. Month-end closing becomes faster, reporting more efficient, and operating costs decline.
The problem is this: these figures mainly show the outcome. They do not show the reality in between. ERP projects usually do not fail because a system is introduced. They fail because companies want to modernize without truly changing the way they work
The problem is this: these figures mainly show the outcome. They do not show the reality in between. ERP projects usually do not fail because a system is introduced. They fail because companies want to modernize without truly changing the way they work
Many companies start an ERP project with an understandable expectation: a new system should simplify processes, create transparency, and reduce existing friction. In practice, however, old processes are often rebuilt inside the new system. Exceptions remain in place. Excel continues to run in parallel. Local logic is not questioned, but reproduced technically. The ERP system is then not used to simplify the organization, but to mirror existing complexity.
This is one of the central misconceptions behind many ERP projects:
New software does not automatically improve processes.
An ERP system is, first and foremost, a tool. It reflects how a company works. If processes are unclear, the ERP system digitizes that lack of clarity. If responsibilities are missing, the system makes those conflicts visible. And poor data does not become better through cloud technology; it is simply processed faster.
The biggest effort in an ERP project therefore often does not arise during installation or migration. It arises in decision-making.
This is exactly where ERP implementation becomes organizationally demanding. Standardization almost always means that individual working styles, informal routines, and local special solutions must give way to shared rules. That is rarely just a technical step. It is a functional and organizational clarification.
This becomes particularly tangible in the many small workarounds that develop over the years. If a report is still built in Excel in parallel, it is not enough to simply “move it into the ERP.” First, it has to be understood which data is being used, what logic sits behind it, and why the report was created outside the system in the first place. In many ERP projects, this clarification is more demanding than the technical implementation itself.
The market often presents ERP implementations as much simpler than they are organizationally. Processes are supposed to be digitized “in just a few days,” “without a major project,” or “in minutes.” Technically, some of this may indeed work impressively fast. Organizationally, however, that narrative falls short.
Companies are not complex because their software is complex. They are complex because processes have grown over time, responsibilities are distributed, and decisions have often been postponed for years.
Anyone who does not reduce that complexity simply shifts it into a new interface.
The current discussion around AI intensifies this pattern rather than solving it automatically. Like ERP, AI is not an end in itself. If processes, data, and responsibilities remain unclear, the result is not an intelligent organization, but additional, scaled shadow IT. Employees then build their own Copilot, ChatGPT, or Excel workflows because organizational standards are missing.
That said, it would be wrong to dismiss the positive effects described in the Forrester study. The results outlined there are achievable, especially with Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central.
The strength of Business Central does not lie only in a single ERP system. It lies in the platform logic behind it: standardized processes, a central data foundation, modern cloud architecture, and close integration with Microsoft 365, Teams, Outlook, Power BI, Power Automate, and increasingly Copilot. This creates not just a new system, but a more consistent digital working environment.
This is particularly relevant for mid-sized companies. Business Central provides a clear standard while still offering enough flexibility to map different business models cleanly, without immediately drifting into deep custom development. That is the real opportunity: not to digitize complexity more attractively, but to reduce it step by step.
Anyone starting an ERP project with Business Central or another system should therefore not begin by talking about features, but about prerequisites.
Which processes should actually be simplified?
Not every existing logic should be transferred one to one. What matters is which processes should be standardized and designed more consistently in the future.
Where do exceptions arise today, and why?
Excel files, manual approvals, shadow IT, and local exceptions are often not accidental. They usually point to unclear requirements or missing standards.
Are responsibilities clearly defined?
A new ERP system makes ambiguity more visible. That is why it should be clarified early on who makes functional decisions, who owns the data, and who is accountable for process design.
Is the project understood as a change initiative?
ERP implementation is not a pure IT project. It affects collaboration, routines, and decision-making logic across the entire company.
Is it clear where standardization makes more sense than individuality?
Not every special case is a competitive advantage. Many are historically grown and make scaling, transparency, and further development more difficult.
Anyone who clarifies these points in advance creates the foundation for ensuring that an ERP system is not only introduced, but becomes effective.
MARKUS WEILAND
project manager
Other articles that might be interesting for you
