Implementation Methodologies
Choosing the right approach sets the tone for the entire project. The methodology you select affects timelines, budgets, stakeholder expectations, and ultimately, success.
The Three Primary Approaches
NetSuite implementations typically follow one of three methodologies, each with distinct advantages depending on organizational culture, project complexity, and risk tolerance.
| Methodology | Best For | Timeline | Risk Profile |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waterfall | Well-defined requirements, regulatory compliance, risk-averse organizations | 6-12+ months | Lower risk of scope changes; higher risk if requirements were wrong |
| Agile | Evolving requirements, tech-savvy users, organizations comfortable with iteration | 3-6 months initial; ongoing sprints | Flexible but requires engaged stakeholders |
| Hybrid | Most NetSuite implementations; balances structure with flexibility | 4-9 months | Best of both worlds when executed well |
Waterfall Approach
The traditional waterfall methodology moves through sequential phases: Discovery → Design → Build → Test → Deploy. Each phase completes before the next begins, with formal sign-offs at each gate.
When to Use Waterfall
- Regulatory requirements demand comprehensive documentation and audit trails
- Fixed budgets require predictable costs and timelines
- Stable requirements that are unlikely to change significantly
- Large organizations with formal change management processes
- Complex integrations with external systems that require coordinated releases
Waterfall Risks
- Requirements gathered months before go-live may no longer reflect business needs
- Users don't see the system until late in the project, leading to surprise issues
- Changes late in the project are expensive and disruptive
- Long timelines can result in stakeholder fatigue and turnover
Agile Approach
Agile implementations work in short sprints (typically 2-4 weeks), delivering working functionality incrementally. Users see and test the system continuously, providing feedback that shapes subsequent sprints.
When to Use Agile
- Evolving requirements in fast-changing business environments
- Engaged stakeholders who can commit time for regular feedback
- Technical teams comfortable with iterative development
- Startups and growth companies that prioritize speed to value
Agile Risks
- Scope can expand without discipline ("just one more sprint")
- Requires significant stakeholder time commitment
- Documentation may suffer if not explicitly prioritized
- Budget unpredictability if sprints keep adding
Hybrid Approach (Recommended)
Most successful NetSuite implementations use a hybrid approach: start with waterfall-style discovery and design, then apply agile principles during build and testing.
This approach provides:
- Upfront clarity on scope, budget, and timeline from structured discovery
- Flexibility during build to adapt as users see the system
- Controlled deployment with formal cutover and go-live procedures
The hybrid approach works because it acknowledges reality: clients don't fully know what they want until they see it. Structured discovery prevents scope explosion, while agile build allows refinement. The key is setting clear boundaries on what can change during sprints (configuration, UI) versus what requires formal change control (core processes, integrations).
Project Governance
Regardless of methodology, establish governance structures before the project begins.
Essential Governance Elements
- Steering Committee: Executive sponsors who make strategic decisions and resolve escalations. Meet monthly or at phase gates.
- Project Team: Day-to-day decision makers including project manager, functional leads, and technical leads. Meet weekly.
- Change Control Board: Evaluates and approves scope changes. Can be the steering committee for smaller projects.
- Communication Plan: Who receives what information, how often, through which channels.
Timeline Expectations
Set realistic expectations based on organization size and complexity.
| Company Profile | Typical Duration | Key Factors |
|---|---|---|
| Small (1-50 employees, single entity) | 3-4 months | Simple chart of accounts, few integrations, standard processes |
| Medium (50-500 employees, 1-3 entities) | 4-8 months | Custom workflows, multiple locations, some integrations |
| Large (500+ employees, multi-subsidiary) | 9-18 months | Complex consolidation, many integrations, global operations |
| Enterprise (multi-national, complex manufacturing) | 18-36 months | Phased rollout, extensive customization, multiple go-lives |
Compressing timelines to meet arbitrary deadlines (fiscal year end, funding milestones) is the single most common cause of implementation failure. It's better to launch a month late with a stable system than on time with critical issues. Build buffer into your timeline.