Implementing a new workpapers solution can be challenging. While the actual setup and migration of data for Workpapers is very simple thanks to our various onboarding tools via integrations and bulk-import tools, some roadblocks may be encountered. These may include:
Struggling to gain buy-in among internal stakeholders
Low uptake from staff
Not using Workpapers in the most effective way for your firm
To mitigate these risks, it's best to leverage an implementor to ensure your implementation of Workpapers is as seamless as possible. You can check out our Using an Implementor article to learn more about how an implementor can help get your firm up and running as quickly as possible, or contact us at [email protected] for assistance.
In this article, we'll cover a few different rollout approaches and outline the pros and cons of each to assist you in making an informed decision on how to best proceed with implementing Cimplico Workpapers in your firm successfully.
Rollout approaches
There are a few different ways to introduce new software into your business; unfortunately, there's no one-size-fits-all solution. We'll introduce a few different options and mention some of the pros and cons of each to give you an idea of which may be best for you.
If you're unsure, it may be best to talk to contact us at [email protected] for assistance.
Direct cut-over ("Big-bang")
A direct cut-over, or "big bang" rollout approach is essentially turning off your old system and immediately using Workpapers on an assigned cut-over or "go-live" date. This is illustrated in the diagram below:
Leading up to the cut-over date, the following is recommended to be completed:
Training of all staff on Workpapers
Setup of all entities, groups, and users
Procedure and checklist templates are configured
Your subscription is configured
Integrations are setup
Pros
Shortest project timeline
No concurrent system maintenance
Lower cost
Fast ROI
Ensures new technology (Workpapers) is adopted
Cons
Higher risk
Testing before the cut-over date is difficult (without allocating further resources)
More pressure on staff education leading up to the cut-over date (staff may learn differently and at different paces)
(Potential) Larger data migration efforts
Lack of initial productivity
Difficult to return to the previous system
Difficult to manage
Phased
The opposite of the direct cut-over is a phased approach, where the new software (Workpapers in this case) is rolled out progressively over the project timeline. This is illustrated below:
The method of "phasing" may vary firm-to-firm, here are a few examples:
Team-based - move a new team to Workpapers in each phase
Location-based - move a different location to Workpapers in each phase
Client-base, move a set of entities/groups to Workpapers in each phase.
In most cases, team-based phasing is recommended, as:
Teams are generally small enough to manage effectively
Team members can support each other during the cut-over period
Greater accountability and adherence to using Workpapers among each member of the team
Work can be completed from start to finish for simple team-based ROI tracking
Each team may have unique constraints that can be isolated and accounted for
With a phased implementation the following items should be completed before initiating phase 1, or during phase 1:
Procedure and checklist templates are configured
Your subscription is configured
Integrations are setup
Each phase will then also consist of the following:
Training of team on Workpapers
Setup of entities, groups, and users (applicable to the team in the phase)
Pros
Easier to adjust to Workpapers
Discovery and remedying of potential issues early before complete firm adoption
Lowers risk
May encourage internal buy-in from staff leading to greater adherence
More time to train staff
More comprehensive testing & validation time
Easier to manage
Cons
Longest project timeline
Requires maintenance of concurrent systems
Higher cost
Delay in ROI
Potential for project delays (if discovery and planning are not conducted extensively)
Pilot
Essentially the middle-ground between the direct cut-over and phased methods, a pilot approach allows a firm to trial Workpapers with a small pilot team before conducting a direct cut-over for the remainder of the firm. Allocating some resources to a pilot team is a great way to mitigate the risk of issues at the cut-over date. It also allows your pilot team to cultivate skills & expertise, allowing them to "champion" the Workpapers implementation and assist colleagues during the cut-over. This is illustrated below:
The following items may be completed by the pilot team during their usage before the cut-over date:
Procedure and checklist templates are configured
Your subscription is configured
Integrations are setup
Training of pilot staff on Workpapers
Setup of pilot entities, groups, and users
Leading up to the cut-over date, the following is also recommended to be completed:
Training of remaining staff on Workpapers
Setup of remaining entities, groups, and users
Pros
Extended period of education for the pilot team
Discovery and remedying of potential issues early before complete firm adoption
Lowers risk
More comprehensive testing & validation time
The internal pilot team can assist new users during cut-over
Neutrals
Some investment
Easier to manage the pilot team, but difficult to manage the full cut-over
Cons
Does not completely remove the risk
Longer project timeline
Requires maintenance of concurrent systems
Requires additional resources (allocating a pilot team, possibly paying for Workpapers subscription depending on the pilot testing period)
Delay in ROI