Phase 2:
Analyzing Each Course of Action
With distinct Courses of Action developed in Phase 1, the focus shifts to rigorous analysis of each option’s feasibility, risks, resource requirements, and probable outcomes. This critical phase transforms high-level concepts into thoroughly understood alternatives, revealing the true implications of each approach and identifying potential problems before commitment to a specific course.
​
Phase 2 analysis serves multiple purposes: it tests whether COAs that seemed viable during generation can actually be accomplished with available resources, it uncovers risks and challenges that were not obvious during initial development, it provides the detailed understanding necessary for meaningful comparison in Phase 3, and it builds organizational confidence that the eventual decision is based on thorough consideration rather than superficial evaluation.
​
The rigor applied during Phase 2 directly determines decision quality. Shallow analysis produces uninformed choices and implementation surprises. Thorough analysis enables confident selection and successful execution. The investment in systematic analysis during Phase 2 pays dividends through better decisions, fewer mid-course corrections, and higher implementation success rates.
Continuing Our Example: The ERP Replacement Decision
As we work through Phase 2, we will continue analyzing the three COAs developed in Phase 1 for the mid-sized manufacturing company replacing its aging ERP system:
​
COA 1: Big Bang Replacement - Complete system replacement in single 15-month implementation with intensive three-month cutover. Fast results, highest risk, $4.5 million budget.
​
COA 2: Phased Modular Replacement - Sequential module implementation over 24 months. Lower risk through incremental approach, extended timeline, $5.2 million budget.
​
COA 3: Parallel Systems Approach - New system implemented while maintaining legacy for 18 months. Maximum safety through redundancy, highest resource requirement, $6.8 million budget.
​
Each step in Phase 2 will demonstrate how to analyze these COAs systematically, building the detailed understanding necessary for the comparison and selection that occurs in Phase 3.
Step 4: Assess Feasibility and Suitability
The first analytical step evaluates whether each COA can actually be accomplished and whether it would accomplish the stated objective. This seemingly obvious assessment often reveals that options which appeared viable during generation face significant feasibility challenges when examined rigorously.
​
Understanding Feasibility
Feasibility addresses whether the COA can be accomplished with available or obtainable resources. A COA might be theoretically sound but infeasible if required resources cannot be secured, if the timeline is unrealistic given the scope of work, if necessary capabilities do not exist and cannot be developed, or if critical dependencies are outside organizational control.
​
Four dimensions of feasibility require assessment:
​
Resource Feasibility: Can the organization obtain the required personnel, budget, technology, and other resources? This goes beyond whether resources exist to whether they can actually be secured and deployed for this purpose. A COA that requires doubling the IT staff is only feasible if those positions can be filled with qualified people in the required timeframe.
​
Timeline Feasibility: Is the proposed timeline realistic given the scope of work and available resources? Many COAs fail because they assume unrealistic completion timelines. Consider not just the duration of individual tasks, but also dependencies, resource constraints, and organizational capacity to absorb change at the proposed pace.
​
Capability Feasibility: Does the organization possess or can it develop the capabilities required for successful execution? Some COAs require skills, knowledge, or organizational competencies that do not currently exist. Feasibility depends on whether these can be developed or acquired in time.
​
Dependency Feasibility: Are required external factors within organizational control or reliably available? COAs that depend on partner cooperation, vendor performance, regulatory approvals, or market conditions face feasibility risks if these dependencies are uncertain.
​
Rate each COA’s feasibility as high, medium, or low, and document the rationale with specific supporting evidence. Be honest about feasibility concerns rather than wishful thinking that problems will somehow resolve themselves.
​
Understanding Suitability
Suitability addresses whether the COA would actually accomplish the stated objective and comply with all requirements and constraints. A feasible COA is unsuitable if it fails to achieve what the decision is meant to accomplish, if it violates mandatory requirements or constraints, or if it conflicts with organizational values, culture, or strategy.
​
Three dimensions of suitability require assessment:
​
Objective Accomplishment: Will this COA achieve the stated objective if successfully implemented? Sometimes COAs that seemed suitable during generation prove inadequate when examined closely. A market entry COA that achieves presence but not the required market share is unsuitable regardless of how well executed.
​
Compliance: Does this COA comply with all mandatory requirements and constraints identified during prerequisites? Constraints might include budget limits, timeline requirements, regulatory compliance, contractual obligations, or strategic direction. A COA that violates constraints is unsuitable even if otherwise attractive.
​
Fit: Is this COA consistent with organizational values, culture, and strategy? An approach that conflicts with how the organization operates or what it values will struggle during implementation even if technically feasible. Cultural fit affects both implementation success and long-term sustainability.
​
Rate each COA’s suitability as high, medium, or low, and document the rationale. Suitability concerns are often fatal to a COA because an unsuitable approach should not be selected regardless of other advantages.
​
Analyzing the ERP Replacement COAs
COA 1: Big Bang Replacement
​
Feasibility Assessment: Medium
​
Rationale: Resource requirements are substantial but obtainable. The $4.5 million budget is within capital planning assumptions. The dedicated team of eight full-time employees can be assembled by pulling people from current roles and hiring two external positions. Consultant support from the vendor is available and budgeted. The 15-month timeline is aggressive but achievable if the project remains on schedule. The primary feasibility concern is the three-month cutover period, which requires executing a complex transition without disrupting operations. This has been done by similar organizations but carries execution risk.
​
Critical Assumptions: - Vendor delivers implementation support as contracted - Key personnel remain available throughout project - No major scope changes occur during implementation - Testing reveals problems early enough for resolution before cutover
​
Suitability Assessment: High
​
Rationale: This COA fully accomplishes the objective of replacing the aging ERP system with modern capabilities. It complies with the timeline requirement (completion by Q4 2026) and the budget constraint ($5 million limit). The approach fits organizational culture, which values decisive action and has successfully executed other big-bang technology implementations. All modules and capabilities are included, providing complete functionality.
​
COA 2: Phased Modular Replacement
​
Feasibility Assessment: High
​
Rationale: Resource requirements are moderate and clearly obtainable. The $5.2 million budget requires full use of allocated capital but remains within constraints. The smaller dedicated team of five full-time employees is easier to staff than COA 1’s larger requirement. The 24-month timeline provides buffer for unexpected challenges. The phased approach allows learning from early modules before tackling later ones, increasing success probability. Each module can be thoroughly tested before moving to the next, reducing risk of major problems. The primary feasibility strength is that the approach can be adjusted between modules if early implementations reveal issues.
​
Critical Assumptions: - Module interfaces work as designed - Organization maintains commitment through extended timeline - Legacy system continues functioning during transition - First module success builds confidence for subsequent modules
​
Suitability Assessment: High
​
Rationale: This COA accomplishes the objective of replacing the ERP system with all required capabilities. The extended 24-month timeline barely meets the Q4 2026 requirement, leaving little margin for delays. The $5.2 million budget is within the constraint but uses all available capital, limiting contingency. The incremental approach fits the organizational culture’s preference for managing risk. All functionality is included, just implemented sequentially rather than simultaneously.
​
COA 3: Parallel Systems Approach
​
Feasibility Assessment: Low
​
Rationale: Resource requirements exceed available resources without additional approvals. The $6.8 million budget exceeds the $5 million constraint by 36%, requiring budget increase that may not be approved. The ten full-time employees required would strain organizational capacity. Managing two complete ERP systems simultaneously is complex and requires capabilities the organization has not previously demonstrated. Vendor support for parallel operations may cost more than estimated. The 24-month timeline with 18 months of parallel operations is achievable if resources are approved, but the complexity increases execution risk despite the safety redundancy provides.
​
Critical Assumptions: - Budget increase to $6.8 million is approved - Organization can effectively manage dual systems - Staff can maintain productivity while learning new system - Clear criteria for legacy retirement can be established and followed
​
Suitability Assessment: High
​
Rationale: This COA accomplishes the objective with maximum safety through redundancy. However, it violates the budget constraint without additional approval. If the budget increase is not approved, this COA is unsuitable despite its advantages. The timeline meets the Q4 2026 requirement. The conservative approach fits organizational risk tolerance but may be excessive given alternatives. The functionality is complete with the added benefit of fallback capability.
​
Key Insights from Feasibility and Suitability Analysis
This analysis reveals that COA 3’s budget requirement makes it infeasible without additional approval, which represents a significant barrier. COA 2 emerges as most feasible due to its moderate resource requirements and built-in risk mitigation through phased approach. COA 1 is feasible but carries execution risk during the cutover period. All three COAs are suitable for accomplishing the objective, assuming COA 3 receives budget approval.
​
These feasibility and suitability assessments provide the foundation for subsequent risk analysis and resource planning.
Step 5: Conduct Risk Analysis for Each COA
Every COA carries risks that could prevent successful implementation or reduce achieved benefits. Systematic risk analysis identifies these risks, assesses their likelihood and impact, and determines whether they can be mitigated or must be accepted.
​
Risk Identification Process
Systematically consider four categories of risk:
​
Execution Risks: What could go wrong during implementation? These risks relate to the organization’s ability to execute the COA as planned. Examples include: key personnel leaving mid-project, vendors failing to deliver as contracted, technical problems proving more difficult than anticipated, or coordination breakdowns between teams.
​
Environmental Risks: What external factors could change? These risks relate to the environment in which the COA operates. Examples include: market conditions shifting, regulatory requirements changing, economic factors affecting budgets, or competitive actions requiring response.
​
Resource Risks: What required resources might not be available when needed? These risks relate to resource availability and allocation. Examples include: budget cuts due to organizational financial pressure, qualified staff unavailable due to competing priorities, technology proving incompatible or more expensive than expected.
​
Stakeholder Risks: What resistance or lack of support might emerge? These risks relate to people and organizational dynamics. Examples include: user resistance to new systems or processes, executive commitment waning during difficult periods, key stakeholders withdrawing support, or insufficient change management creating adoption problems.
​
For each identified risk, assess likelihood (high, medium, or low probability of occurrence) and impact (high, medium, or low consequences if it occurs). This assessment enables prioritization of mitigation efforts on risks that are both likely and consequential.
​
Risk Mitigation Strategies
For high-likelihood or high-impact risks, develop mitigation strategies. Mitigation can take several forms:
​
Prevention: Actions taken before or during implementation to reduce the probability that the risk occurs. Examples include: thorough testing to prevent technical problems, detailed vendor contracts to ensure performance, or extensive training to reduce user resistance.
​
Reduction: Actions that reduce the impact if the risk occurs. Examples include: phased approaches that limit exposure, backup systems that provide fallback capability, or contingency budgets that absorb unexpected costs.
​
Transfer: Shifting the risk to another party through contracts, insurance, or partnerships. Examples include: vendor warranties that cover performance problems, consultant contracts that include risk-sharing provisions, or insurance for specific risk categories.
​
Acceptance: Acknowledging risks that cannot be effectively mitigated and accepting them as part of the COA. This is appropriate for low-probability or low-impact risks where mitigation costs exceed potential risk costs.
​
Document mitigation strategies for significant risks and assess the residual risk that remains after mitigation. This residual risk becomes part of the overall risk profile used in COA comparison.
​
Analyzing Risks for the ERP Replacement COAs
​​
​​COA 1: Big Bang Replacement​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​Overall Risk Profile: High risk due to big-bang approach with intensive cutover period. Primary concern is the three-month cutover window where major problems could significantly disrupt operations. Mitigation reduces some risks but cannot eliminate inherent risk in comprehensive simultaneous transition. Success depends heavily on execution excellence during cutover.
​
Risk Acceptability: Risk is acceptable given the faster time to benefit and lower total cost. The organization has successfully executed similar big-bang implementations in other areas, providing confidence in capability. Executive leadership has expressed willingness to accept higher risk for faster results.
​
COA 2: Phased Modular Replacement
​​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​
​
Overall Risk Profile: Medium risk due to incremental approach that allows learning and adjustment. Primary concern is module integration and maintaining organizational commitment through extended timeline. The phased approach provides natural checkpoints for assessment and adjustment, reducing overall risk compared to big-bang implementation.
​
Risk Acceptability: Risk is acceptable and well-managed through the phased approach. Each module can be evaluated before proceeding to the next, allowing course correction if problems emerge. The extended timeline creates some risk of losing momentum but is mitigated through strong change management.
​
COA 3: Parallel Systems Approach
​​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​
​
Overall Risk Profile: High risk due to budget requirement that may not be approved and complexity of managing dual systems. While the parallel approach provides maximum operational safety, it creates significant resource burden and organizational complexity. The primary risk is whether the budget increase will be approved; without it, this COA cannot proceed.
​
Risk Acceptability: Risk is questionable. The budget overage creates immediate feasibility risk. Even if budget is approved, the organizational burden of managing two complete systems may outweigh the safety benefits, particularly when COA 2 provides substantial risk mitigation through phased implementation without the cost and complexity of parallel systems.
​
Key Insights from Risk Analysis
Risk analysis reveals significant differences between COAs. COA 1 carries highest execution risk but clear mitigation approaches. COA 2 provides best risk management through incremental approach. COA 3’s risk profile is dominated by budget approval uncertainty, and even if approved, the complexity of parallel operations may not justify the cost premium over COA 2’s phased approach.​
Step 6: Develop Detailed Resource Requirements
With feasibility established and risks identified, the next step develops detailed resource estimates that enable realistic cost comparison and implementation planning.
​
Personnel Requirements
Identify all personnel required for COA implementation, including dedicated full-time staff, part-time support from existing staff, consultant and vendor support, and training resources. Specify roles, required skills, approximate numbers, and duration of involvement.
​
Consider both direct project resources (people working on implementation) and indirect resources (people providing support services, covering for staff reassigned to the project, or managing organizational change). Hidden personnel costs often emerge when existing staff are reassigned but their regular responsibilities still require coverage.
​
Financial Requirements
Develop comprehensive financial estimates across all relevant categories:
​
Capital Expenditure: Software licenses, hardware, infrastructure, and other capital investments. Specify whether costs are one-time or recurring, as this affects total cost of ownership calculations.
​
Operating Expenditure: Ongoing costs including maintenance, support, training, and operations. Operating costs often exceed initial capital costs over the system lifecycle, so accurate operating estimates are critical for true cost comparison.
​
Contingency Reserve: Set aside funds for unexpected costs based on project complexity and risk profile. Standard practice is 10-20% contingency depending on risk assessment, with higher-risk COAs warranting larger contingency reserves.
​
Break down costs by major category and phase to understand when funds will be required. Cash flow timing affects feasibility even when total costs are within budget if funds are not available when needed.
​
Technology and Infrastructure Requirements
Document all technology and infrastructure requirements, including:
​
Software Requirements: All software components needed, including licenses, development tools, integration platforms, and support systems. Specify whether build or buy decisions have been made.
​
Hardware Requirements: Servers, storage, networking, and end-user devices. Even in cloud implementations, some hardware requirements typically exist.
Infrastructure Requirements: Data centers, telecommunications, security systems, and backup/disaster recovery capabilities.
​
Integration Requirements: How new systems will integrate with existing technology landscape. Integration is often underestimated in initial planning but can be one of the most complex and expensive aspects of implementation.
​
Timeline and Schedule Requirements
Develop detailed timeline showing:
​
Phase Durations: How long each major phase will take, including dependencies between phases.
​
Resource Loading: When different resources are required and at what levels. Many projects fail due to resource conflicts where multiple activities require the same resources simultaneously.
​
Critical Path: Which activities drive the overall timeline and cannot be delayed without affecting completion date.
​
Decision Points: When key decisions must be made to keep the project on schedule.
​
Analyzing Resource Requirements for the ERP Replacement COAs
COA 1: Big Bang Replacement
Personnel Requirements: - Dedicated project team: 8 FTEs for 15 months - Project Director (1) - Business Analysts (2) - Technical Leads (2) - Change Management Specialists (2) - Project Coordinator (1) - Part-time support: 12 FTEs (equivalent) from business units for requirements, testing, and training - Consultant support: Implementation partner providing 4-6 consultants during peak periods - Vendor technical support: Included in software contract - Total personnel cost (internal + external): $2.1 million
​
Financial Requirements: - Software licenses (cloud subscription, 3-year prepay for discount): $1.8 million - Implementation services (consultant and vendor): $1.2 million - Hardware/infrastructure (minimal due to cloud): $150,000 - Training and change management: $300,000 - Contingency (15% due to cutover risk): $650,000 - Total Budget: $4.5 million
​
Technology Requirements: - Cloud-based ERP platform (vendor hosted) - Integration middleware for legacy system connections - Data migration tools - Testing environments (provided by vendor) - User training systems
​
Timeline: - Months 1-3: Planning and requirements - Months 4-9: Configuration and development - Months 10-12: Testing and training - Months 13-15: Cutover preparation, cutover, and stabilization - Total Duration: 15 months
​
COA 2: Phased Modular Replacement
​
Personnel Requirements: - Dedicated project team: 5 FTEs for 24 months (smaller team, longer duration) - Project Director (1) - Business Analyst (1) - Technical Lead (1) - Change Management Specialist (1) - Project Coordinator (1) - Part-time support: 8 FTEs (equivalent) from business units, staggered by module - Consultant support: Smaller consultant team (2-3) throughout project - Vendor technical support: Included in software contract - Total personnel cost (internal + external): $2.3 million (higher due to extended duration)
​
Financial Requirements: - Software licenses (same cloud subscription cost): $1.8 million - Implementation services (smaller team, longer duration): $1.0 million - Hardware/infrastructure: $150,000 - Training and change management (spread across modules): $350,000 - Legacy system extended maintenance during transition: $300,000 - Contingency (12% due to lower risk from phased approach): $600,000 - Total Budget: $5.2 million
​
Technology Requirements: - Same cloud-based ERP platform - Integration middleware (more complex due to phased rollout) - Module-specific interfaces to legacy during transition - Testing environments for each module - User training systems
​
Timeline: - Months 1-6: Finance module (planning, implementation, testing, deployment) - Months 7-12: Operations module - Months 13-18: Supply chain module - Months 19-24: Remaining modules and full integration - Total Duration: 24 months
​
COA 3: Parallel Systems Approach
​
Personnel Requirements: - Dedicated project team: 10 FTEs for 24 months - Project Director (1) - Business Analysts (2) - Technical Leads (3) - Change Management Specialists (2) - Parallel Operations Coordinator (1) - Project Coordinator (1) - Part-time support: 15 FTEs (equivalent) due to dual system operations - Consultant support: Larger team (4-6) for parallel operations management - Vendor technical support: Included in software contract - Total personnel cost (internal + external): $3.2 million
​
Financial Requirements: - Software licenses (same cloud subscription): $1.8 million - Implementation services (larger team for parallel operations): $1.5 million - Hardware/infrastructure: $150,000 - Training and change management: $400,000 - Legacy system extended maintenance and enhancement: $500,000 - Parallel operations incremental costs: $600,000 - Contingency (10% due to low operational risk): $680,000 - Total Budget: $6.8 million
​
Technology Requirements: - Cloud-based ERP platform - Enhanced integration for parallel operations - Data synchronization systems between legacy and new - Comprehensive testing environments - Dual training systems
​
Timeline: - Months 1-6: New system implementation - Months 7-24: Parallel operations with gradual transition - Month 24: Legacy system retirement - Total Duration: 24 months
​
Key Insights from Resource Analysis
Resource analysis confirms that COA 3 significantly exceeds budget constraints, requiring 36% increase. COA 2’s $5.2 million budget is within constraints but uses all available capital. COA 1 provides $500,000 budget margin that could cover unexpected costs.
​
Personnel requirements reveal that COA 1’s shorter timeline requires larger team but for less time, resulting in lower total personnel cost despite more people. COA 3’s requirement for 10 dedicated staff may strain organizational capacity.
​
Timeline analysis shows COA 1 delivers results 9 months faster than alternatives, which may have significant business value. All three meet the Q4 2026 requirement, but COA 2 and 3 have little margin for delays.
Step 7: Project Probable Outcomes
The final analytical step projects likely outcomes if each COA is successfully implemented, including best case, most likely case, and minimum acceptable outcomes. This outcome projection enables comparison of what each COA actually delivers, not just what it costs.
​
Outcome Dimensions to Consider
Functional Capability: What capabilities will be available after implementation? While all three COAs implement the same ERP system, differences in implementation approach may affect when capabilities become available and how fully they are utilized.
​
Business Benefits: What business improvements will be realized? Benefits might include: operational efficiency gains, cost reductions, improved decision-making through better information, enhanced customer service, reduced errors, or competitive advantages.
​
Timeline to Benefits: When will benefits begin to be realized? Faster implementations deliver benefits sooner, which has financial value. Phased implementations may deliver some benefits early while other benefits come later.
​
Risk to Operations: What is the probability of operational disruption during implementation? Even successful implementations create some disruption, but the magnitude varies significantly between approaches.
​
Organizational Learning: What organizational capabilities will be developed through the implementation process? Some approaches build more internal capability than others, which has long-term value beyond the immediate project.
​
Flexibility for Future: How well does this approach position the organization for future changes? Some implementations create more flexible foundations that enable easier future enhancements or changes.
​
Analyzing Probable Outcomes for the ERP Replacement COAs
COA 1: Big Bang Replacement
​
Best Case Outcome: Implementation proceeds smoothly through all phases. Cutover completed in three months with minor issues only. All capabilities available by Month 15. Users adapt quickly due to comprehensive training. Full benefits realized by Month 18. Operational efficiency improvements of 20% achieved. Cost savings of $800,000 annually from process improvements and legacy system retirement. System provides foundation for future digital initiatives.
​
Most Likely Outcome: Implementation experiences typical challenges but maintains schedule. Cutover extends to four months with moderate issues requiring resolution. All capabilities available by Month 16. User adoption varies by department, with full proficiency by Month 20. Benefits realize gradually, reaching 85% of target by Month 24. Operational efficiency improvements of 15%. Annual cost savings of $600,000. System meets current needs with some limitations for future expansion.
​
Minimum Acceptable Outcome: Implementation faces significant challenges requiring schedule extension to Month 18. Cutover difficult with operational disruptions affecting some areas. All capabilities eventually available but with reduced functionality in some modules. User adoption slow with ongoing training needs. Benefits reach only 60% of target by Month 30. Operational efficiency improvements of 10%. Annual cost savings of $400,000. System meets core needs but requires enhancement for advanced capabilities.
​
Risk to Outcome: Medium to high. The big-bang approach creates significant exposure during cutover. If major problems occur during cutover, outcome could fall to minimum acceptable or below. Success depends on execution excellence during compressed timeline.
​
COA 2: Phased Modular Replacement
​
Best Case Outcome: Each module implementation succeeds, building confidence and capability. Early modules deliver benefits while later modules are still being implemented. Cumulative benefits begin by Month 8 and grow steadily. All capabilities available by Month 24 with excellent user adoption due to gradual introduction. Operational efficiency improvements of 18% achieved through process optimization during phased rollout. Annual cost savings of $700,000. Organization develops strong internal ERP management capability through phased learning. System architecture provides excellent foundation for future enhancements.
​
Most Likely Outcome: Module implementations succeed with typical challenges requiring minor schedule adjustments. Early modules deliver benefits beginning Month 10. Learning from first modules improves later module implementations. All capabilities available by Month 26. User adoption good due to manageable change pace. Operational efficiency improvements of 15%. Annual cost savings of $650,000. Internal team builds solid capability to manage system ongoing. System meets all current needs and most future requirements.
​
Minimum Acceptable Outcome: First module implementation faces challenges that extend schedule. Lessons learned improve subsequent modules but cause 3-month schedule slip. Benefits delayed until Month 14 but then grow steadily. All capabilities available by Month 27. User adoption acceptable but requires extended support. Operational efficiency improvements of 12%. Annual cost savings of $500,000. Some internal capability developed but external support still needed. System meets core requirements.
​
Risk to Outcome: Low to medium. Phased approach allows course correction if early modules face problems. First module success significantly increases probability of overall success. Approach protects downside while still achieving substantial benefits.
​
COA 3: Parallel Systems Approach
Best Case Outcome: Implementation proceeds without disrupting operations. Parallel period allows thorough validation and user adaptation. Transition from legacy to new system smooth and confidence-building. Full capabilities available by Month 24 with extremely high user proficiency. No operational disruptions during transition. Operational efficiency improvements of 18%. Annual cost savings of $650,000 (reduced by higher operating costs of sophisticated system). Strong organizational confidence in system reliability. Excellent foundation for future capabilities.
​
Most Likely Outcome: Implementation succeeds but parallel operations prove complex to manage. Some confusion about which system to use for what. Extended parallel period (20 months) needed to achieve confidence. Full capabilities available by Month 26. User proficiency good but parallel period creates some inefficiency. Operational efficiency improvements of 14% (reduced by parallel operations overhead). Annual cost savings of $550,000. Organization develops conservative but solid system management approach. System meets all requirements but high operating costs.
​
Minimum Acceptable Outcome: Parallel operations prove more difficult than expected. Clear criteria for legacy retirement hard to establish. Parallel period extends to 22 months, increasing costs. Full capabilities available by Month 28. User confusion between systems affects adoption. Operational efficiency improvements of 10%. Annual cost savings of $400,000 (significantly reduced by extended parallel operations costs). System eventually meets requirements but at higher cost than alternatives.
​
Risk to Outcome: Medium. While operational risk is low due to redundancy, the organizational complexity of managing parallel systems creates outcome risk. Benefits may be delayed by extended parallel period. High costs may not be justified by incremental risk reduction versus COA 2.
​
Key Insights from Outcome Analysis
Outcome analysis reveals that COA 1 offers highest potential benefits realized soonest, but with highest risk of falling short. COA 2 provides balanced outcome with moderate upside, solid most-likely scenario, and protected downside. COA 3’s outcomes do not justify the 31% cost premium over COA 2, particularly when COA 2’s phased approach already provides substantial risk mitigation.
​
The outcome analysis also reveals that benefit realization timing significantly affects value. COA 1’s faster implementation delivers benefits 8-12 months sooner than alternatives, which has substantial financial value beyond the nominal budget savings.
Preparing for Phase 3: What We Have Learned
Phase 2 analysis has transformed the three high-level COAs from Phase 1 into thoroughly understood alternatives. We now know:
​
About Feasibility: COA 2 is most feasible with moderate resource requirements. COA 1 is feasible but challenging. COA 3 requires budget increase, making feasibility conditional on approval.
​
About Risk: COA 2 provides best risk management through phased approach. COA 1 carries execution risk during cutover but has clear mitigation. COA 3’s parallel operations create complexity that may not justify cost.
About Resources: COA 3 exceeds budget by 36%. COA 2 uses full budget allocation. COA 1 remains within budget with $500,000 margin for contingencies.
​
About Outcomes: COA 1 delivers benefits soonest but with execution risk. COA 2 provides balanced outcomes with protected downside. COA 3’s outcomes do not justify the cost premium.
​
This detailed analysis provides the foundation for systematic comparison in Phase 3, where we will apply weighted criteria to identify which COA best meets organizational priorities given the trade-offs revealed through analysis.
The investment in thorough Phase 2 analysis ensures that the comparison and selection in Phase 3 will be based on genuine understanding rather than superficial impressions. Purposeful leadership requires purposeful analysis. Phase 2 provides the analytical foundation for purposeful choice in Phase 3.