Technology projects fail more often than boards would like to admit.
When they do, the consequences are rarely limited to IT departments.
According to public reporting, SPAR's troubled SAP implementation contributed to approximately R1.6 billion in lost turnover, operational disruption, litigation and significant leadership changes. The financial impact was substantial. The operational consequences were even more revealing.
What stands out about SPAR's latest SAP announcement is not the technology itself.
It is the change in approach.
Rather than attempting to transform multiple critical functions simultaneously, SPAR has reportedly chosen to separate key work streams, including finance, warehouse management and distribution operations. The objective is straightforward: reduce execution risk and improve the likelihood of a successful outcome.
This shift reflects an important principle of operational resilience.
Mature organisations do not assume that large technology programmes will proceed exactly as planned. They recognise that every major transformation introduces risk and they structure projects accordingly.
The lesson from SPAR is not that digital transformation should be avoided.
Modern organisations depend on technology to remain competitive, efficient and scalable.
The lesson is that business-critical systems carry business-critical consequences when they fail.
When software supports core operational functions such as supply chain management, inventory control, finance, customer service or revenue generation, technology risk becomes business risk.
At that point, resilience is no longer an IT issue.
It becomes a board issue.
For directors and senior executives, the real challenge is not deciding whether to modernise systems.
The challenge is ensuring that the organisation can continue operating if something goes wrong during implementation, after deployment or during the life of the software itself.
Too often, technology projects focus heavily on functionality, delivery timelines and budget management while giving insufficient attention to continuity planning.
Yet history repeatedly demonstrates that failures occur.
Projects run over schedule.
Implementations underperform.
Suppliers experience financial distress.
Critical vendors are acquired.
Support arrangements change.
Key technical resources leave.
In some cases, software providers cease operations entirely.
When any of these events affect systems that support critical business functions, organisations can find themselves exposed to operational disruption, financial losses, reputational damage and regulatory scrutiny.
The organisations that navigate technology transformation successfully are typically those that ask difficult questions before problems emerge.
Questions such as:
What happens if implementation fails?
What happens if the software supplier can no longer support the solution?
What happens if access to critical software assets is required to maintain operations?
What recovery plans exist if a key vendor disappears?
How quickly can critical services be restored following a major disruption?
These questions form the foundation of operational resilience.
They are also increasingly relevant in regulated environments where boards and executives are expected to demonstrate appropriate oversight of technology risk. South Africa's Joint Standard 1 of 2023 places responsibility on governing bodies and senior management to ensure effective IT governance, risk management, resilience, recoverability and business continuity arrangements.
Technology investments create value.
Operational resilience protects that value.
That protection requires more than disaster recovery plans and cyber security controls. It requires organisations to understand their dependencies on third-party technology providers and to implement appropriate safeguards where critical software underpins business operations.
This is why many organisations invest in structured business continuity planning, vendor risk management programmes, software escrow arrangements and verification testing. These measures are designed to ensure that critical systems remain supportable and recoverable even when unforeseen events affect software suppliers or technology programmes.
The financial cost of technology failure is often visible.
The cost of inadequate resilience planning is usually discovered afterwards.
SPAR's experience serves as a reminder that successful digital transformation is not only about implementing new technology.
It is about ensuring the organisation can withstand disruption, maintain continuity and protect operational capability when circumstances do not unfold according to plan.
When billions of rands, customer trust, regulatory obligations and corporate reputations are at stake, that distinction matters.
Share
Editorial contacts