Among companies that didn't hire consultants for either the planning/software purchase process or for the implementation (a quarter of all survey respondents), only 27 percent changed their processes to fit the software, rather than changing the software to fit their processes. Fifty-seven percent customized the software a little, and 16 percent said their implementation involved a lot of customization. Organizations that hired consultants did do more customization, but the difference wasn't extreme (23 percent customized a lot, 56 percent a little, and 20 percent didn't customize at all). Even more interesting, a full 86 percent of companies that performed a lot of customization without any help from consultants during either phase of the purchase and deployment process reported that the implementation's costs met their expectations. Among the few companies that spent more than $500,000 on consultants in both phases, only 43 percent said the cost of the implementation met their expectations. For 57 percent of these big spenders, implementation went substantially over budget.

So, Who Is Happiest With BPM?

Not too surprisingly, the larger the investment, the less likely finance managers are to be satisfied with the resulting system. Big spending and hefty consumption of staff time mean complicated projects and high hopes. More than half of companies in each of the survey's software-spending brackets said the resulting system meets their expectations. However, smaller projects are much more likely to exceed expectations than is software that cost over $500,000. And although only 10 percent of applications that cost less than $50,000 failed to fully live up to expectations, 44 percent of products that cost more than $500,000 are underachieving. Similarly, companies that are pleased with the results of their software implementation project used far fewer internal resources over the course of the project (see exhibit 5 below).

Another factor that appears to affect buyers' satisfaction with the software is the level of customization the project entails (see exhibit 3 below). Organizations that didn't attempt any customization of the software are more likely to have exceeded their goals. The difference becomes even more pronounced when the project's cost relative to budget is thrown into the mix. Among companies that customized their software a lot and came in over budget, just 16 percent of projects exceeded expectations (5 percent exceeded by far). Forty-four percent of these companies are somewhat disappointed in their system, and 11 percent are very disappointed. Conversely, among companies that customized their software a little but still came in under budget, 57 percent of projects exceeded expectations (43 percent did so by far). And just 4 percent of solutions for these organizations have failed to meet expectations.

Companies that hired consultants tend to be less satisfied than those that did not (again, see exhibit 1). Only 9 percent of those that hired consultants for help during the planning and software purchase -- and 11 percent of those that hired implementation consultants -- said their solution far exceeds their expectations, whereas 30 percent of projects that did not involve any external consultants far surpassed goals. In addition, among the handful of companies that spent more than $500,000 on planning-and-purchase assistance, half feel their implementation wasn't worth the money and effort it entailed (see exhibit 4 below). Whether the consultant contributed to the disappointment is impossible to determine, but the data indicates some kind of linkage. Still, it's important to keep in mind that even among organizations that hired consultants for both planning and implementation, less than 25 percent of all software systems have failed to fully meet expectations.

One factor that doesn't seem to affect companies' satisfaction is whether they install the software on internal servers or rely on an application service provider (ASP) to host it. A handful of survey respondents (6 percent) use BPM software that is hosted by a third-party provider. Although this practice is frequently promoted as an option for businesses that can't afford installed applications, most of the hosted solutions represented in our survey were relatively pricey. Thirty percent of respondents using an ASP spent less than $50,000 on the software itself, but 40 percent spent more than $100,000 on the software. Survey respondents that use hosted solutions spent about as much as the organizations that installed BPM systems in-house. Interestingly, too, satisfaction with the software -- and even whether the project came in under budget -- seems unaffected by whether the software is installed locally or hosted.

At every level of spending on the product, on consultants, and on implementation, some software purchases fail to live up to expectations. Most buyers who are displeased encounter surprises during the implementation process that substantially impact the speed and cost of the project. Unexpected data-integration problems were a common complaint among our survey respondents, as was a failure to anticipate the degree of customization the software would require. Some blame their software vendor for setting unrealistic timelines or delivering a poor-quality product. One noted that the licensing agreement contained hidden costs. Others blame their service provider; wrote one, "The implementation consultants didn't understand accounting."

But our survey also revealed that many BPM buyers are pleasantly surprised by the results of their rollout. Despite the risks of undertaking a project the size of the standard BPM implementation, few survey respondents regret having taken on the project. Many, in fact, said they would change nothing about their approach if they had the entire project to do over again. Implementation of a BPM software package is certainly not an initiative to undertake lightly. It will probably be expensive and eat up a good deal of time among finance and IT staff members, and possibly within the company's business units as well. But companies that enter the world of BPM with their eyes wide open are very likely to find the project well worth the effort.

Meg Waters is editor in chief of BPM magazine and of the monthly e-mail newsletter BPM Express.