Workarounds Signal Misalignment Between Systems And Users

These are workarounds, and while each one looks like a small act of individual problem-solving, together they represent something more significant: evidence that the system and the people using it haven’t reached alignment yet.

The instinct is to treat workarounds as a compliance problem: enforce system use, restrict access to spreadsheet tools, and issue reminders until behaviour changes. But enforcement alone rarely solves the problem, because workarounds are not usually acts of defiance. They are acts of survival, created when the system does not give people what they need to do their job and they need to do their job anyway.

Fixing workarounds means fixing what caused them.

Why workarounds happen

The causes fall into one of four areas, and in most organisations, more than one is in play at the same time.

1. Inadequate training

   When users are not confident in the system, they default to what they know, and that is not a failure of willingness so much as a failure of preparation. Training that happens once before go-live, delivered in generic sessions that do not reflect a user’s actual role and daily tasks, produces users who can navigate the system in a controlled environment but struggle the moment a real exception arises. The spreadsheet waiting on their desktop is always faster than searching for help.

2. Poor process fit

   Some workarounds exist not because users lack confidence, but because the system genuinely does not accommodate how their process works in practice. If a workflow was configured based on assumptions that did not hold up after go-live, users will find a path around it, and forcing compliance with a broken process does not fix the process. It just makes the workaround less visible.

3. Lack of in-the-moment support

   The period immediately after go-live is when the real complexity of a new system becomes apparent. Users encounter exceptions, edge cases, and scenarios that training did not cover. If there is nowhere to get a quick answer, no super-user nearby, no accessible reference material, no support channel that responds quickly, users will make their own decisions and those decisions usually involve going back to what they know.

4. Absence of visible consequence

   When nobody notices that a department is managing its purchase orders in a spreadsheet, or that an approval is being handled over WhatsApp rather than through the system, the behaviour becomes normalised. Over time, it becomes institutional, and new team members learn the workaround as if it were the process. The original system-based process is forgotten entirely.

What workarounds actually cost

The immediate cost of a workaround is inefficiency, but the longer-term cost is data integrity. When decisions are being made from information that lives outside the ERP, the system’s records no longer reflect operational reality. Reporting becomes unreliable. Reconciliation at month-end becomes complicated. Audit trails disappear. And because the organisation does not know what data exists outside the system, it cannot govern or protect it.

There is also a compounding effect. Each workaround that goes unaddressed sends a signal: that the ERP is optional. That signal, once established, is difficult to reverse. Teams that have been working around the system for six months are significantly harder to bring back into standard processes than teams addressed in the first few weeks.

As explored in Why ERP Workflows Get Stuck and What to Do About It, many of the root causes of stuck workflows, including outdated routing, inactive roles, and incomplete master data, also produce workarounds. Users who cannot progress through a legitimate process will find another way to move forward.

How to fix the root cause

Addressing workarounds requires working backwards from the behaviour to understand what need it is meeting. That diagnosis shapes the response.

1. Fix inadequate training

   The fix is not more of the same training. It is better-targeted training, delivered closer to the moment of need. Role-specific guidance that reflects what a user actually does, rather than what the system is capable of in theory, builds the kind of confidence that reduces the instinct to revert. Reinforcement support in the weeks after go-live, through super-users, reference guides, or accessible help channels, closes the gap between what training covered and what daily work demands.

2. Fix poor process fit

   The fix requires an honest conversation about whether the system configuration still reflects how the organisation operates. This is a governance responsibility, not a technical one, and processes change quickly enough that systems rarely keep pace on their own. A regular review of where exceptions are clustering, where approval queues are consistently bypassed, and where data is consistently entered late or incorrectly will surface the configuration gaps that are generating workarounds downstream.

3. Fix the lack of visibility

   Make adoption measurable. Dashboard usage, transaction volumes, exception rates, and approval cycle times all tell a story about whether teams are working in the system or around it. As covered in Your ERP Dashboard Is Talking. Is Anyone Listening?, managers who engage with this data daily are far better positioned to spot adoption gaps early, before they harden into permanent workarounds.

4. Fix the absent consequence

   Visible leadership behaviour is the most effective corrective tool. When senior leaders reference system data in operational reviews, ask for it by name, and visibly hold teams accountable for process compliance, they establish that the ERP is not optional infrastructure. That signal travels further than any policy document.

The workaround as a diagnostic tool

There is a useful reframe here: a workaround is not only a problem to be eliminated, but it is also information. Every workaround points to a gap in training, process design, support, or governance. Organisations that investigate workarounds rather than simply prohibiting them will find that the fixes they put in place improve the system for everyone, not just the individuals who had found a way around it.

The spreadsheet sitting alongside the ERP is not a sign of a difficult workforce. It is a sign that somewhere a user’s need went unmet, and meeting that need, through better preparation, more responsive support, or a willingness to revisit how the system was configured, is what sustainable adoption actually looks like.