Overcoming Upgrade Challenges for EAMs: Lowest Common Denominator

⇨ Approximately 60% of new technology projects in organizations fail primarily due to inadequate rollout strategies, specifically the pitfalls of a lowest common denominator approach.

⇨ The lowest common denominator approach produces an average solution that fails to meet the specific needs of various operational environments, leading to inefficiency in mobile maintenance units.

⇨ To effectively implement technology upgrades, organizations should group sites by similarities and utilize low-code/no-code solutions for customized workflows, enhancing the adaptability of their SAP PM or EAM systems.

Around 60% of new technology projects undertaken by an organization fail. Apart from being delayed or over budget, a key reason for failure lies in how the project is rolled out. In the second of this three-part series, based on an SAPinsider webinar by Robert Hancock, Global Vice President of Sales at Sigga, we look at how a lowest common denominator approach can mar a technology rollout for companies upgrading from paper-based SAP Plant Maintenance (PM) or enterprise asset management (EAM) environments to mobile maintenance units.

What exactly is the lowest common denominator approach? According to Hancock, this approach creates a one-size-fits-all software solution, aiming for broad applicability. However, it often fails to meet specific requirements, compromising efficiency in a complex environment.

Thus, the lowest common denominator approach tends to produce an “average solution” and fails to meet the specific needs of each location. This approach cannot work with mobile solutions that must be flexible and necessitate the organization adapting to each environment’s particular needs.

Types of lowest common denominators

“A lowest common denominator approach usually comes in one of three types,” Hancock explained, giving examples of how a lowest common denominator approach produces an average solution.

• Type one: This is the best-enabled site with great processes for testing the solution and excellent infrastructure so that even a complex solution can be easily implemented.
• Type two: These sites are the lowest-performing ones in an organization. They may be two years old and the average tenure for a maintenance technician is 16 months. These sites cannot be expected to use that solution. They don’t derive any value from it and could end up producing wrong data.
• Type three: It is “an average of the first two types.” This site won’t do as much as the first type of site, but it is better than the sub-par, type two site. “This type creates a middle ground that nobody likes as the organization has just downgraded one group’s function but upgraded another’s by giving them a solution that doesn’t work for them,” Hancock said.

Getting ahead of average

Overcoming the lowest denominator approach is straightforward, according to Hancock, if the organization follows these two steps:

Group sites: When implementing or planning a new technology, the organization must analyze its sites and group them according to their similarities. It can then roll out different versions of the solution that are unique to those sites.

Utilizing low-code/no-code solutions enables organizations to provide a different experience and workflow based on a user’s individual needs. Low-code/no-code tools can help the organization develop the solution quickly and customize mobile apps to specific user needs, depending on the site’s technological maturity.

These two steps can help organizations looking to upgrade their SAP PM or SAP EAM solutions to avoid the pitfalls of a lowest common denominator approach.

In the final part of this series, we will study how organizations can overcome data challenges while upgrading their SAP EAM with mobile solutions.