Connected business operations. Flexible deployment.
Learn how parallel running reduces risk in ERP migrations by validating data integrity, process accuracy, and system stability before cutover. A practical guide for CIOs and IT leaders.
Parallel running, or operating both the legacy and new ERP systems simultaneously for a defined period, is the most effective method to validate data integrity, process accuracy, and system stability before cutover. It allows organizations to compare outputs from both systems in real-world conditions, identifying discrepancies in financial reporting, inventory levels, and transactional flows that static testing often misses. For CIOs and IT directors, this phase is not optional; it is a mandatory risk mitigation strategy that protects business continuity. The primary risks controlled during this phase include data loss, reporting errors, broken integrations, and performance bottlenecks. By executing a rigorous parallel run, leadership gains the confidence to proceed with cutover, knowing that the new system can handle live operational loads without disrupting core business functions.
Before initiating parallel running, define the scope clearly. Determine which modules, business units, or processes will be included. For example, you might run Finance and Supply Chain in parallel while keeping HR on the legacy system if it is not part of the initial migration wave. The objective is to verify that the new ERP produces the same results as the legacy system for identical inputs. This requires a detailed reconciliation plan. Identify key performance indicators (KPIs) such as general ledger balances, inventory counts, and order fulfillment rates. These metrics will serve as the baseline for comparison. Assign ownership for each metric to specific stakeholders, such as the CFO for financial data and the COO for operational data. This ensures accountability and clear communication when discrepancies arise.
Data used during parallel running must be representative of live operations. Avoid using synthetic or test data, as it may not capture edge cases or real-world complexities. Instead, use a copy of production data or, in some cases, live data if the systems are isolated. Ensure that the data is synchronized between the legacy and new systems at the start of the parallel run. This synchronization point is critical; any drift in data between the two systems will invalidate the comparison. Document the data snapshot date and time, and ensure that all subsequent transactions are recorded in both systems. This creates a clean audit trail for reconciliation.
Technical preparation is crucial for a successful parallel run. The new ERP system must be deployed in a production-like environment, with the same hardware, network configuration, and security settings as the target production environment. This ensures that performance issues identified during the parallel run are relevant to the live system. Additionally, integrations with third-party systems, such as CRM, e-commerce platforms, and payment gateways, must be configured to route data to both systems or to a middleware layer that can split the data. This requires careful coordination with integration partners to avoid data duplication or loss. Ensure that all custom code and add-ons are tested in this environment to verify compatibility with the new ERP version. Compatibility and support must be verified against the vendor's official documentation for the exact source and target versions.
Data synchronization between the legacy and new systems is a complex task. It involves mapping fields, transforming data formats, and handling deduplication. Use automated tools where possible to reduce manual errors, but always validate the results with manual spot checks. For example, if customer records are migrated, ensure that all contact details, billing addresses, and credit limits are accurately transferred. Similarly, for inventory, verify that stock levels, locations, and batch numbers are consistent. Document any data cleansing or transformation rules applied during this phase. This documentation is essential for troubleshooting discrepancies and for future audits. It also provides a reference for the final data load during cutover.
During the parallel run, users must enter transactions in both systems. This is resource-intensive and requires clear communication and training. Provide users with detailed instructions on how to record data in both systems, including any specific codes or formats required. Monitor the systems closely for errors, performance issues, or user confusion. Establish a daily stand-up meeting to review progress, address issues, and update the reconciliation status. Use dashboards to visualize key metrics and highlight discrepancies in real time. This allows for quick response to emerging problems. For example, if a discrepancy in accounts payable is detected, the finance team can investigate immediately, rather than waiting for the end of the parallel run. This proactive approach reduces the risk of major issues surfacing during cutover.
Parallel running doubles the workload for end users, which can lead to fatigue and errors. To mitigate this, provide additional training and support. Offer quick-reference guides and access to a dedicated help desk. Consider reducing the scope of parallel running for certain users or processes if the workload becomes unmanageable. For example, you might limit parallel running to a subset of transactions or a specific business unit. This allows for a more focused and manageable validation process. Communicate the importance of this phase to all stakeholders, emphasizing that their effort is critical to the success of the migration. Recognize and reward teams that demonstrate high accuracy and efficiency during this period.
Reconciliation is the core activity of parallel running. It involves comparing the outputs of the legacy and new systems for each key metric. Use automated reconciliation tools to identify variances, but always follow up with manual investigation to determine the root cause. Categorize discrepancies into data errors, process errors, and system errors. Data errors may result from incorrect mapping or cleansing; process errors may stem from user input mistakes or procedural differences; system errors may indicate bugs or configuration issues in the new ERP. For each discrepancy, document the root cause, the corrective action taken, and the verification of the fix. This creates a comprehensive log of issues and resolutions, which is valuable for the final cutover and post-migration support.
Not all variances are significant. Define tolerance levels for each key metric based on business impact. For example, a small variance in inventory counts may be acceptable if it is within a certain percentage, while any variance in financial reporting must be zero. These tolerance levels should be agreed upon by business stakeholders and documented in the reconciliation plan. Use these levels to prioritize issues for investigation. Focus on high-impact variances first, and address lower-impact variances as resources allow. This ensures that critical issues are resolved before cutover, while lower-priority issues can be addressed in the post-migration phase.
Parallel running is an excellent opportunity to test the performance and stability of the new ERP system under live loads. Monitor system metrics such as response times, throughput, and resource utilization. Compare these metrics with the legacy system to identify any performance regressions. For example, if the new system takes longer to process batch jobs, investigate the cause and optimize the configuration. Test peak load scenarios, such as month-end closing or holiday sales, to ensure that the system can handle increased demand. Document any performance issues and their resolutions. This data is critical for capacity planning and for ensuring that the system can support future growth.
During parallel running, verify that security controls and compliance requirements are met in the new system. Test user access rights, role-based permissions, and audit trails. Ensure that sensitive data is encrypted in transit and at rest. Validate that the system complies with relevant regulations, such as GDPR, SOX, or HIPAA, depending on your industry. Conduct penetration testing or vulnerability scans if necessary. Document any security issues and their resolutions. This ensures that the new system is secure and compliant before it goes live, reducing the risk of data breaches or regulatory penalties.
Deciding when to end parallel running is a critical decision. It should be based on predefined criteria, not just time. Common criteria include: all key metrics are within tolerance levels, all critical discrepancies are resolved, system performance meets benchmarks, and user confidence is high. Establish a go/no-go committee, including representatives from IT, finance, operations, and executive leadership, to review the results and make the final decision. The committee should review the reconciliation log, performance reports, and user feedback. If the criteria are not met, extend the parallel run or address the remaining issues before proceeding. This disciplined approach ensures that cutover is only initiated when the system is ready.
Document the go/no-go decision and the rationale behind it. Include a summary of the reconciliation results, performance metrics, and any remaining risks. This documentation serves as a formal record of the decision and provides a reference for post-migration audits. It also helps to communicate the status of the migration to stakeholders who were not involved in the parallel run. Ensure that the document is signed off by all members of the go/no-go committee. This formal approval process adds accountability and ensures that all parties are aligned on the readiness of the system.
Once parallel running is complete and the go decision is made, transition to cutover. This involves final data loads, system configuration, and user training. Use the lessons learned from parallel running to refine the cutover plan. For example, if certain data mappings were problematic, ensure that they are corrected in the final load. If performance issues were identified, apply the optimizations to the production environment. Establish a post-migration support team to address any issues that arise after go-live. This team should include IT support, business process owners, and vendor support if necessary. Monitor the system closely during the first few weeks after go-live, and be prepared to roll back if critical issues occur.
Even with a successful parallel run, issues can arise during cutover. Have a well-defined rollback strategy in place. This includes a plan for restoring the legacy system, reverting data changes, and communicating with users. Test the rollback plan during the parallel run to ensure that it is feasible and timely. Define clear triggers for rollback, such as critical data loss or system downtime exceeding a certain threshold. Ensure that all stakeholders are aware of the rollback plan and their roles in executing it. This preparedness reduces the impact of any unexpected issues and ensures that business continuity is maintained.
Common pitfalls in parallel running include insufficient data synchronization, lack of user training, and inadequate reconciliation processes. To avoid these, invest in robust data management tools, provide comprehensive training, and establish a rigorous reconciliation framework. Another pitfall is extending the parallel run indefinitely, which can lead to user fatigue and increased costs. Set a clear timeline and stick to it, while being flexible enough to address critical issues. Finally, avoid ignoring minor discrepancies, as they can indicate underlying problems that may become significant later. Address all discrepancies, regardless of their size, to ensure a thorough validation of the new system.
Automation can significantly improve the efficiency of parallel running. Use automated tools for data synchronization, reconciliation, and monitoring. This reduces manual effort and minimizes the risk of human error. However, do not rely solely on automation; always include manual validation steps to catch issues that automated tools may miss. For example, automated reconciliation may identify a variance, but manual investigation is needed to determine the root cause. Combine the strengths of automation and manual processes to create a robust and efficient parallel running strategy.
Parallel running is a critical phase in any ERP migration. It provides a safe environment to validate data, processes, and system stability, reducing the risk of cutover failures. By defining clear objectives, preparing the technical environment, executing rigorous reconciliation, and monitoring performance, organizations can build confidence in the new system. This confidence is essential for a successful cutover and long-term adoption. As you plan your ERP migration, prioritize parallel running as a key component of your risk management strategy. It is an investment that pays off in reduced downtime, improved data integrity, and higher user satisfaction. Use the insights gained from parallel running to refine your cutover plan and post-migration support, ensuring a smooth transition to the new ERP system.
Common questions on this topic. Talk to our team for anything specific to your business.
The duration depends on the complexity of the migration and the volume of transactions. Typically, it lasts from one to three months. The key is to cover at least one full business cycle, such as a month-end close, to validate financial reporting. Extend the duration if critical discrepancies are found or if performance issues need to be resolved.
Skipping parallel running increases the risk of data loss, reporting errors, and system instability during cutover. It can lead to business disruption, financial inaccuracies, and loss of user confidence. Without parallel running, issues may only be discovered after go-live, making them more difficult and costly to fix.
Reconciliation involves comparing key metrics, such as general ledger balances and inventory counts, between the two systems. Use automated tools to identify variances, then manually investigate the root cause. Document all discrepancies and corrective actions to ensure a clean audit trail.
Yes, parallel running can be scoped to specific modules or business units. This is often done in phased migrations, where only certain parts of the ERP are moved to the new system. Ensure that the scope is clearly defined and that data synchronization is managed for the included modules.
Key metrics include data accuracy (within tolerance levels), system performance (response times and throughput), and user satisfaction. Additionally, the resolution of all critical discrepancies and the sign-off from the go/no-go committee are strong indicators of success.
Parallel running can initially increase user workload, but it also builds confidence in the new system. By allowing users to work with both systems, they become familiar with the new processes and interfaces. This familiarity can improve adoption rates after cutover, as users are less likely to be overwhelmed by the change.
A practical guide for CIOs and ERP consultants on migrating procurement workflows while preserving vendor contracts and historical purchase order data, ensuring audit compliance and operational continuity.
Discover how professional services firms use ERP to standardize workflows, improve financial visibility, and scale operations by moving from fragmented tools to a unified system of record.
A practical guide to data cleansing protocols for ERP migration, focusing on deduplication, validation, and error reduction to ensure a successful system cutover.
Discuss your workflows, modules and deployment options with our team.
Back to resources