The 90-Day ERP Health Check: Optimizing Your System After the Dust Settles

You’ve been live on your new ERP system for three months. The chaos of go-live has subsided. Your team is no longer calling every minor issue a crisis. Daily operations are functioning adequately, if not smoothly. And you’re starting to wonder: is this as good as it gets, or are we missing optimization opportunities that could dramatically improve operations?

The answer, in almost every case, is that significant optimization potential exists—but you need systematic assessment to identify where. Three months post-implementation represents a critical inflection point. Your team has enough experience with the system to understand how it actually works versus how training suggested it should work. You’ve encountered real operational scenarios that training simulations couldn’t anticipate. You’ve developed workarounds for system friction that might be eliminated through better configuration or process adjustments. And you’ve probably accumulated a list of frustrations, questions, and “we should probably fix that eventually” issues that deserve structured attention.

But most distribution companies don’t conduct systematic post-implementation reviews at the 90-day mark. They operate with the assumption that once implementation is complete, the work is done. Customer service is processing orders, warehouse staff is fulfilling them, accounting is closing months, and everyone has moved on to other priorities. The system becomes “just how we operate now,” with its inefficiencies, underutilized capabilities, and configuration gaps accepted as normal rather than identified as opportunities.

This missed optimization opportunity is costly. Industry research suggests that ERP systems typically deliver only 40-60% of their potential value immediately after go-live, with the remaining value realized through post-implementation optimization, enhanced user adoption, and continuous improvement. Without deliberate post-implementation assessment, that remaining 40-60% of value often goes uncaptured—leaving significant operational improvements and financial benefits unrealized.

For mid-market distribution companies that invested substantially in new ERP platforms, the 90-day health check represents a critical step in maximizing return on that investment. The assessment doesn’t need to be elaborate or time-consuming—a focused, systematic review conducted over 1-2 weeks can identify optimization priorities that deliver measurable operational improvements and position your organization for long-term system success.

This article examines why the 90-day post-implementation period is the optimal time for ERP health checks, explores the specific areas that systematic assessment should address, and provides a practical framework for conducting reviews that identify actionable optimization opportunities. Whether you recently completed an ERP implementation or are planning one, understanding the importance of post-implementation optimization helps ensure you realize the full value of your technology investment.

Why 90 Days Is the Optimal Assessment Point

The timing of post-implementation health checks matters. Too early, and your team hasn’t gained sufficient experience to identify meaningful optimization opportunities. Too late, and suboptimal processes have become entrenched as “how we do things,” making change more difficult. The 90-day mark represents a sweet spot that balances experience with agility.

The Learning Curve Has Stabilized

In the first weeks after go-live, everything is new and uncertain. Users are still learning basic navigation, discovering features they didn’t know existed, and adjusting to new workflows. System performance issues are difficult to distinguish from user learning challenges. And the operational chaos of any major system change obscures whether problems stem from system limitations or simply unfamiliarity.

By 90 days post-implementation, the learning curve has largely stabilized. Users have processed enough transactions to develop operational rhythm and competence. They’ve encountered the full range of typical business scenarios—busy periods and slow periods, routine transactions and complex exceptions, normal operations and crisis management. This operational experience provides the context necessary to assess whether system configuration genuinely supports efficient workflows or creates unnecessary friction.

One industrial distributor noted that at 30 days post-implementation, their warehouse staff was still struggling with basic RF scanning workflows. At 90 days, they’d mastered basics and begun identifying specific system behaviors that slowed productivity—like excessive confirmation screens for routine picks or unclear error messages when allocation issues occurred. The 90-day feedback was actionable system improvement input rather than early-learning frustrations.

Real-World Scenarios Have Emerged

Implementation testing and training necessarily focus on common transactions and typical scenarios. But every distribution operation encounters edge cases, seasonal variations, and unusual situations that testing didn’t anticipate. By 90 days, you’ve likely experienced enough operational diversity to identify where system configuration doesn’t adequately support less-common but still important business scenarios.

These real-world scenarios reveal system gaps that theoretical testing missed. Perhaps your system handles standard order entry smoothly but struggles with emergency shipments requiring same-day processing. Or warehouse management works well for fast-moving items but creates inefficiencies for slow-movers stored in overflow locations. Or financial reporting delivers standard statements perfectly but can’t produce the specialized analyses your CFO requires for board presentations.

An electrical distributor discovered at their 90-day review that while standard order fulfillment worked smoothly, special order processing for non-stock items required excessive manual workarounds. During implementation testing, they’d focused on stock item workflows that represented 85% of transactions, but the 15% special order volume was sufficiently large that workflow inefficiency significantly impacted operations. The 90-day review identified specific configuration changes that streamlined special order processing.

Workarounds Have Been Identified

When new ERP systems create operational friction, users develop workarounds—alternative approaches that achieve necessary outcomes despite system limitations. Some workarounds are creative solutions that represent user ingenuity. Others are problematic patterns that circumvent important controls or create data quality issues. By 90 days, your organization has likely developed numerous workarounds that deserve evaluation.

Systematic assessment of workarounds reveals important optimization opportunities. Some workarounds indicate system configuration that should be adjusted to eliminate unnecessary friction. Others reveal missing training where users don’t understand how to use system features that would eliminate workaround necessity. Still others identify genuine system limitations requiring either creative solutions or acceptance as operational constraints.

One building materials distributor discovered during their 90-day review that warehouse staff had developed elaborate workarounds for inventory adjustments because the standard adjustment process required manager approvals even for tiny discrepancies. The approval requirement, appropriate for large adjustments, created workflow friction for routine cycle count corrections. Simple configuration changes—establishing threshold amounts below which adjustments didn’t require approval—eliminated unnecessary workarounds and improved operational efficiency.

User Confidence Enables Honest Feedback

Early post-implementation periods often suppress honest feedback. Users don’t want to seem negative about new systems leadership invested in significantly. They’re uncertain whether frustrations reflect system limitations or their own unfamiliarity. And they’re focused on getting through each day rather than stepping back to assess how things could work better.

By 90 days, user confidence has grown sufficiently to enable more honest, constructive feedback. They understand the system well enough to distinguish between their learning gaps and genuine system limitations. They’ve invested enough in the new environment to care about optimization rather than just surviving. And they’ve seen evidence that feedback can drive improvements, making them willing to share observations and suggestions.

The 90-day assessment creates explicit permission and structure for honest feedback. Rather than hoping users will volunteer observations spontaneously, systematic assessment asks structured questions that elicit specific insights about what’s working well, what’s creating friction, and what could be improved.

Optimization Isn’t Yet Overwhelming

As time passes post-implementation, the list of potential optimizations grows. At 90 days, the optimization backlog is manageable—perhaps 15-25 significant opportunities plus numerous minor improvements. At 12 months, the backlog might include 75-100 items that have accumulated as users identified issues but nothing was done to address them. The larger the backlog grows, the more overwhelming optimization becomes, potentially leading to paralysis where nothing gets addressed because everything seems important.

Early systematic assessment keeps optimization manageable. You identify and prioritize improvements while the list is still digestible, implement high-priority changes quickly, and establish ongoing continuous improvement patterns rather than letting issues accumulate indefinitely.

Core Areas for 90-Day Assessment

Effective ERP health checks systematically assess specific operational and technical areas where optimization opportunities typically emerge. These assessments don’t require elaborate procedures—focused inquiry and observation reveal meaningful insights efficiently.

User Adoption and Workflow Efficiency

The most critical health check area examines whether users are effectively adopting the system and whether configured workflows support efficient operations. Poor user adoption or inefficient workflows undermine ERP value regardless of system capabilities.

Assess user adoption through several lenses. Are users consistently using the system for intended transactions, or are parallel processes (spreadsheets, manual records) persisting? Are users accessing relevant features and capabilities, or are they using only minimal functionality? Do users understand available tools that could improve their productivity, or is valuable functionality going unused due to lack of awareness?

Evaluate workflow efficiency by observing actual operations. How many steps does order entry require for typical transactions? Are there unnecessary confirmation screens, required fields that rarely contain meaningful data, or navigation patterns that force inefficient screen transitions? Do workflows accommodate operational realities like busy periods requiring rapid transaction processing or exception scenarios requiring flexible approaches?

Ask users directly about friction points. What takes longer in the new system than it should? What requires workarounds to accomplish? What causes frustration or confusion? What features do they wish existed? These user perspectives reveal optimization opportunities that management observation might miss.

One HVAC distributor’s 90-day assessment revealed that customer service representatives were using only basic order entry features, unaware that the system supported quick order entry capabilities that could reduce keystrokes by 60% for repeat orders. Simple training on underutilized features dramatically improved order processing efficiency without any system configuration changes.

Data Quality and Integrity

ERP systems are only as valuable as the data they contain. Post-implementation assessment should examine whether data quality is being maintained or whether quality is degrading as operational pressures prioritize speed over accuracy.

Review data quality across key areas. Are product master records complete with accurate descriptions, pricing, costs, and inventory attributes? Are customer records current with correct contact information, pricing agreements, and shipping addresses? Are inventory location records accurate, or are discrepancies between system and physical inventory growing? Are transactions being recorded completely and accurately, or are shortcuts creating data gaps?

Examine data entry patterns. Are required fields being populated meaningfully, or are users entering placeholder data just to satisfy system validation? Are data standards being followed consistently, or is inconsistency creating reporting and search problems? Are users understanding what different fields mean and how data gets used, or is confusion leading to incorrect data entry?

Assess data cleanup and maintenance processes. Who’s responsible for correcting data errors when discovered? How are duplicate records identified and merged? What processes ensure product master data stays current as products change? Are periodic data quality reviews conducted, or does data gradually degrade without systematic attention?

An industrial distributor’s 90-day assessment discovered that inventory location accuracy had declined from 98% at go-live to 87% because warehouse staff were taking shortcuts during busy periods—not confirming locations during put-away or skipping location scans during picking. Reinforcing the importance of location discipline and addressing specific system friction that encouraged shortcuts restored location accuracy above 95% within weeks.

System Performance and Technical Health

Technical performance problems undermine user adoption and operational efficiency. The 90-day assessment should evaluate whether system performance is meeting expectations and whether technical issues are creating operational friction.

Assess system responsiveness. Are screens loading promptly, or are users experiencing delays that disrupt workflow? Are reports generating in reasonable timeframes, or do users avoid running reports because they’re too slow? Are high-volume periods (like monthly processing or busy season) revealing performance constraints that weren’t apparent during normal operations?

Evaluate system reliability. Are users experiencing crashes, freezes, or unexpected errors? Are certain transactions or processes particularly prone to problems? Are workarounds being used to avoid system instability in specific areas?

Review integration health. Are connections between your ERP and external systems (e-commerce, EDI, shipping platforms, payment processors) working reliably? Are data synchronization issues occurring that require manual reconciliation? Are integration failures disrupting operations or creating data inconsistencies?

Examine technical infrastructure. Is server capacity adequate for current usage and anticipated growth? Is network bandwidth sufficient for remote users or mobile device access? Are backup and disaster recovery processes working reliably? Are security patches and system updates being applied appropriately?

A building materials distributor’s 90-day assessment revealed that month-end financial closing was taking 40% longer than expected because certain reports were running very slowly. Technical review identified database performance issues that simple optimization resolved, reducing month-end processing time significantly and eliminating a major source of accounting team frustration.

Business Process Alignment

ERP systems should support your business processes, but the relationship goes both ways—sometimes processes need to adapt to leverage system capabilities effectively. The 90-day assessment evaluates whether processes and system configuration are well-aligned.

Review key business processes against system workflows. Are procurement processes working efficiently with system purchase order and receiving workflows, or are manual workarounds indicating misalignment? Are sales processes leveraging CRM and order management capabilities effectively, or are sales teams maintaining parallel systems? Are warehouse operations optimized around system-directed workflows, or are workarounds indicating configuration gaps?

Identify process improvements enabled by system capabilities. Are there manual processes that could be automated? Are there data-gathering activities that could be eliminated because the system captures information automatically? Are there approval workflows that could be streamlined through system automation?

Assess whether processes implemented during go-live represent optimal approaches or were interim solutions pending future optimization. Implementation often includes compromises—”we’ll do it this way for now and optimize later”—that the 90-day review should surface for attention. Are those intended optimizations still important, or have operations adapted such that they’re no longer priorities?

One food distributor’s 90-day review identified that their inventory replenishment process was entirely manual despite the system having robust reorder point and suggested purchase order capabilities. They’d planned to implement automated replenishment after go-live but hadn’t prioritized it. Activating these features eliminated hundreds of hours of manual replenishment analysis annually and improved inventory availability.

Reporting and Analytics Utilization

Effective reporting and analytics enable data-driven decision-making, but many organizations underutilize these capabilities post-implementation. The 90-day assessment should evaluate whether management is getting the insights they need from system data.

Review current reporting usage. What reports are being run regularly? Are they providing useful information in accessible formats? What questions are managers asking that available reports don’t answer? Are users creating ad hoc exports and spreadsheet analyses because standard reports are inadequate?

Assess analytics sophistication. Is the organization using basic transactional reporting only, or are analytical capabilities like trend analysis, profitability analytics, and predictive insights being leveraged? Are dashboard and visualization tools being used effectively? Are key performance indicators being tracked systematically through system reports or through manual collection?

Identify reporting gaps. What management decisions require information that’s difficult to extract from the system? What regulatory or compliance reporting creates manual compilation burdens? What customer or vendor reports are being generated through workarounds rather than systematic processes?

Evaluate report quality and usability. Are reports formatted clearly and accessibly? Do they contain appropriate detail levels, or are they either too granular or too summarized? Are they delivered timely enough to support decisions? Can business users generate needed reports themselves, or do all reporting requests require IT involvement?

An electrical distributor’s 90-day assessment revealed that while their ERP contained comprehensive sales data, sales management was still using spreadsheets for performance tracking because they didn’t understand how to generate needed reports from the system. Developing custom dashboards showing sales by rep, product category, and customer segment—with self-service filtering capabilities—eliminated spreadsheet dependency and provided better real-time visibility into sales performance.

Security and Access Controls

Security and access control configurations balancing operational access with appropriate restrictions require periodic review. The 90-day assessment evaluates whether security settings support operations without creating unnecessary risks.

Review user permissions and roles. Do users have appropriate access for their responsibilities? Are there users with excessive permissions granted during implementation that should be restricted? Are there users with insufficient access requiring workarounds or frequent permission requests?

Assess segregation of duties. Are financial controls properly segregated between transaction entry and approval? Can users modify their own transactions inappropriately? Are sensitive functions like pricing changes or inventory adjustments properly restricted?

Evaluate password policies and authentication practices. Are password requirements appropriately rigorous without being so onerous that users write passwords down? Is multi-factor authentication being used where appropriate? Are inactive user accounts being disabled promptly?

Review audit trail and monitoring practices. Are system logs being reviewed for suspicious activity? Are critical transactions being tracked appropriately for compliance purposes? Can you demonstrate who did what when if questions arise?

One HVAC distributor’s security review revealed that three former employees still had active system accounts weeks after termination. While those accounts showed no unauthorized usage, the oversight represented serious security risk. Implementing systematic access review processes tied to HR offboarding eliminated this vulnerability.

Training Effectiveness and Knowledge Gaps

Even comprehensive implementation training leaves knowledge gaps that emerge during actual operations. The 90-day assessment identifies training needs and knowledge gaps that targeted instruction can address.

Gather feedback on training effectiveness. Did initial training prepare users adequately? What topics need reinforcement? What capabilities weren’t covered sufficiently? What advanced features would users benefit from learning about?

Identify knowledge gaps through observation and questioning. Are users aware of shortcuts and efficiency features that could improve productivity? Do they understand how their data entry impacts downstream processes? Do they know who to contact when encountering specific issues?

Assess documentation and reference material availability. Can users find answers to questions independently, or must they interrupt colleagues? Are procedures documented clearly and kept current? Are tips and best practices being captured and shared?

Evaluate ongoing training and support structures. Is there a clear process for users to get help when needed? Are power users identified who can provide peer support? Are periodic refresher training sessions conducted, or was training a one-time implementation activity?

A building materials distributor’s 90-day assessment revealed that warehouse staff didn’t understand how to handle several exception scenarios that occurred infrequently—returns processing, damaged goods, and incorrect shipments received. Because these situations arose only occasionally, users couldn’t remember procedures and wasted time figuring out approaches each time. Creating quick reference guides and conducting targeted refresher training on exception handling eliminated inefficiency and reduced errors.

Conducting the Assessment: Practical Methodology

Understanding what to assess is only half the challenge—you also need practical methodology for conducting assessments efficiently without disrupting operations. The following framework provides systematic approach that mid-market distributors can execute with internal resources.

Assemble a Cross-Functional Assessment Team

Don’t rely on IT or a single department to conduct the assessment. Effective health checks require perspectives from all parts of the organization that use the system. Assemble a small core team (4-6 people) representing key functional areas—operations, customer service, warehouse, sales, accounting, and IT.

This team should include both management perspectives (understanding strategic objectives and overall performance) and front-line perspectives (understanding daily operational realities). The warehouse manager and a working warehouse lead bring different but complementary insights. The accounting manager and a staff accountant provide broader assessment than either alone.

Assign clear roles. Someone should lead the assessment, coordinating activities and ensuring momentum. Others should focus on specific assessment areas based on their expertise—the warehouse manager leads warehouse workflow assessment, accounting leads financial reporting review, IT addresses technical performance.

Schedule regular assessment team meetings—perhaps twice weekly for 2-3 weeks—to review findings, discuss patterns, and develop recommendations. Brief, focused meetings maintain momentum without consuming excessive time.

Gather Input Systematically

Rather than relying on informal feedback, use structured approaches to gather user input consistently across the organization.

Conduct focused user interviews with representatives from each functional area. Thirty-minute conversations structured around standard questions—what’s working well, what’s causing friction, what workarounds are you using, what do you wish the system could do—generate specific, actionable insights.

Deploy brief user surveys covering standard assessment areas. Keep surveys short (10-15 questions maximum) to encourage completion. Use a mix of rating scales (1-5: how satisfied are you with order entry efficiency?) and open-ended questions (what single change would most improve your daily work?).

Observe operations directly. Spend time watching customer service enter orders, warehouse staff process picks, accounting team complete month-end closing. Observation reveals workflow inefficiencies that users might not mention because they’ve become normalized.

Review system usage data and reports. What features are being used heavily versus barely at all? Where are error rates high? What reports are generated frequently versus never? Usage patterns reveal adoption gaps and potential training needs.

Analyze Findings and Identify Patterns

As assessment input accumulates, analyze findings to identify patterns and prioritize opportunities rather than generating overwhelming lists of individual observations.

Group related observations. If five people mention order entry inefficiency, that’s a pattern warranting prioritization. If one person suggests a niche feature request, that’s lower priority. Pattern recognition helps distinguish systemic issues from individual preferences.

Distinguish quick wins from significant projects. Some optimization opportunities require minimal effort—configuration tweaks, minor training, eliminating unnecessary required fields. Others involve substantial work—major workflow redesign, custom development, significant process changes. Identify quick wins that can deliver value immediately while planning larger initiatives for appropriate scheduling.

Assess impact versus effort for prioritization. High-impact opportunities that require low effort should be prioritized aggressively—these are obvious optimization targets. High-effort initiatives need impact justification—are benefits sufficient to warrant investment? Low-impact opportunities, regardless of effort, probably aren’t priorities unless they’re trivially easy.

Consider interdependencies between optimization opportunities. Sometimes addressing one issue enables or requires addressing related issues. Understanding these relationships helps sequence improvements logically.

Develop Actionable Recommendations

Transform assessment findings into specific, actionable recommendations rather than vague suggestions. “Improve order entry efficiency” isn’t actionable. “Remove mandatory customer PO field requirement for walk-in customers, implement quick order entry training for customer service team, and create keyboard shortcuts for five most common products” is actionable.

Each recommendation should specify what change is proposed, why the change addresses identified issues, who’s responsible for implementation, and what timeline is realistic for completion. This specificity enables decision-making and accountability.

Prioritize recommendations into categories: immediate actions (implement within 2 weeks), near-term priorities (implement within 90 days), and longer-term opportunities (plan for future implementation). This prioritization prevents overwhelming the organization while ensuring critical issues get prompt attention.

Estimate resource requirements realistically. Some recommendations require only configuration changes internal staff can handle. Others need vendor support, specialized expertise, or significant time investment. Honest resource assessment enables planning and prevents commitments you can’t fulfill.

Communicate Findings and Secure Buy-In

Assessment value is realized only when recommendations get implemented, which requires stakeholder buy-in and commitment. Present findings and recommendations to appropriate audiences—executive leadership for strategic priorities and resource allocation, functional managers for departmental improvements, and end users for process changes affecting their daily work.

Frame findings constructively. This isn’t about criticizing implementation or identifying failures—it’s about optimizing valuable systems to deliver more value. Emphasize successes and improvements since go-live while identifying opportunities for further enhancement.

Use data to support recommendations. Quantify impacts where possible—”implementing quick order entry will save approximately 45 seconds per repeat order, translating to 12 hours weekly across our customer service team.” Data-driven recommendations are more compelling than subjective opinions.

Celebrate quick wins visibly. As high-priority, low-effort improvements get implemented, communicate successes to build momentum and demonstrate that assessment input drives real improvements. This positive reinforcement encourages ongoing engagement with continuous improvement.

Common Optimization Opportunities

While every ERP implementation is unique, certain optimization opportunities emerge consistently across distribution companies. Understanding these common patterns helps focus assessment attention and accelerates improvement implementation.

Configuration Fine-Tuning

Many systems go live with configuration that’s close but not quite optimal. Small configuration adjustments often deliver disproportionate workflow improvements.

Common configuration optimizations include adjusting required versus optional fields (eliminating fields that rarely contain meaningful data while ensuring critical information is captured), streamlining approval workflows (raising thresholds, reducing approval layers, or automating routine approvals), optimizing default values (setting intelligent defaults that reduce data entry for common transactions), improving screen layouts (reordering fields, hiding irrelevant sections, emphasizing high-use features), and refining validation rules (eliminating overly restrictive rules that force workarounds while maintaining appropriate controls).

These configuration tweaks typically require minimal effort but can substantially improve user experience and efficiency. An electrical distributor eliminated seven required fields from their standard order entry screen after 90-day assessment revealed they were rarely populated meaningfully. This simple change reduced order entry time by 20-30 seconds per order—a meaningful efficiency gain that required about two hours of configuration work.

Training Reinforcement

Implementation training provides initial exposure but can’t ensure retention or cover every scenario. Targeted post-implementation training addresses knowledge gaps and builds proficiency.

Focus training on high-impact areas: advanced features that users don’t realize exist, exception scenario handling that occurs infrequently enough that users forget procedures, efficiency shortcuts that can dramatically improve productivity, and proper data entry practices that impact downstream processes.

Consider different training formats. Brief “lunch and learn” sessions on specific topics may be more effective than comprehensive multi-day training. Video tutorials allow self-paced learning. Quick reference guides provide just-in-time help. Power user mentoring leverages peer support.

One building materials distributor implemented monthly 30-minute training sessions covering different system features. Each session focused on one capability—quick order entry one month, advanced search techniques the next, reporting tools after that. This ongoing training approach built capability progressively without overwhelming users and maintained focus on continuous improvement.

Process Simplification

Sometimes processes implemented during go-live include unnecessary complexity that can be eliminated through simplification. The 90-day assessment identifies simplification opportunities that improve efficiency without sacrificing control or accuracy.

Look for approval bottlenecks where routine transactions require manager sign-off adding delay without meaningful value. Consider whether approval thresholds can be raised, approval requirements eliminated for certain transaction types, or automated approvals implemented based on business rules.

Identify data entry redundancy where users enter the same information multiple places. Can data be captured once and flow automatically to everywhere it’s needed? Can system defaults or automation eliminate repetitive entry?

Examine exception handling processes that may be more complicated than necessary. Can standard exception scenarios be accommodated through system configuration rather than workarounds? Can exception approvals be streamlined?

An HVAC distributor simplified their returns processing by eliminating a manager approval requirement for returns under $500 from established customers. The approval had been included during implementation out of abundance of caution but proved unnecessary—in six months, not a single return in this category had been rejected. Eliminating the approval reduced return processing time from 3 days to same-day.

Reporting Development

Standard reports configured during implementation rarely address all management needs. Custom reporting development fills gaps and improves business intelligence.

Prioritize high-value reports that support frequent decisions. Sales performance dashboards enable sales management. Inventory turn analysis supports purchasing optimization. Customer profitability reports inform strategic account decisions. These high-use reports justify development investment through regular value delivery.

Develop reports that eliminate manual data compilation. If managers are regularly exporting data and building spreadsheets for analysis, that’s a report development opportunity. System-generated reports save time and ensure consistency.

Create role-specific dashboard views that present relevant KPIs for different users. Customer service might see order status and customer inquiry metrics. Warehouse sees fulfillment productivity and inventory accuracy. Executive dashboard shows high-level financial and operational performance.

One industrial distributor developed a set of eight custom dashboards addressing different user needs identified in their 90-day assessment. The investment of perhaps 40 hours in report development eliminated hundreds of hours of manual data compilation annually and provided better, more timely business intelligence than previous approaches.

Integration Enhancement

Initial implementations often include basic integrations that can be enhanced for better functionality and efficiency.

Review e-commerce integration to ensure product data, pricing, and inventory availability sync appropriately. Can integration frequency increase to provide more real-time data? Can order flow automation eliminate manual touches? Can customer-specific pricing display correctly online?

Evaluate EDI connections with trading partners. Are all major customers and suppliers integrated? Can EDI automate transactions currently handled manually? Are integration error rates acceptable or indicating configuration issues?

Assess shipping system integration. Are tracking numbers flowing back to ERP automatically? Can customers access tracking without calling customer service? Are freight costs captured systematically for landed cost analysis?

Consider additional integration opportunities identified through operations. Are there manual processes that could be automated through integration? Are there disconnected systems that should be linked?

A food distributor enhanced their e-commerce integration post-implementation to include customer-specific pricing display and real-time inventory availability. These enhancements, which hadn’t been included in initial go-live scope, significantly improved customer experience and reduced customer service inquiries about pricing and availability.

Establishing Ongoing Continuous Improvement

The 90-day health check shouldn’t be a one-time activity but rather the establishment of ongoing continuous improvement discipline. Building systematic optimization into operational culture ensures your ERP investment continues delivering increasing value over time.

Regular Review Cadence

Establish regular system review cadence beyond the initial 90-day assessment. Quarterly or semi-annual reviews maintain optimization momentum without becoming burdensome. These reviews don’t need to be as comprehensive as the 90-day assessment but should systematically address specific areas or recent changes.

Maintain a backlog of optimization opportunities identified but not yet implemented. As resources become available or priorities shift, address backlog items rather than letting them fade from attention.

Track metrics over time to assess whether optimizations are delivering intended benefits. If configuration changes were meant to improve order processing efficiency, measure whether efficiency actually improved. Data-driven assessment validates improvement efforts and identifies areas needing further attention.

User Feedback Mechanisms

Create systematic mechanisms for users to provide ongoing feedback rather than waiting for scheduled reviews. Suggestion boxes (physical or virtual), regular touch-base meetings with power users, and brief periodic pulse surveys maintain connection between system performance and user experience.

Respond visibly to feedback. When users see that their input drives improvements, they remain engaged with providing feedback. When suggestions disappear into a black hole, feedback stops flowing.

Celebrate user-driven improvements. When a user suggestion leads to configuration change or process improvement, recognize that contribution. This recognition reinforces that user perspectives are valued and encourages continued engagement.

Knowledge Management

Capture and share optimization insights, process improvements, and lessons learned so knowledge doesn’t remain siloed in individual minds. Document procedures that work well, workarounds that address legitimate system limitations, and tips that improve efficiency.

Develop and maintain up-to-date training materials, quick reference guides, and troubleshooting documentation. These resources support new user onboarding and provide ongoing reference for occasional procedures.

Identify and empower power users who can provide peer support, share best practices, and help colleagues navigate challenges. Formal power user networks or informal recognition of subject matter experts builds organizational capacity for system optimization.

Vendor Relationship Management

Maintain active relationships with your ERP vendor for ongoing support, guidance, and access to platform enhancements. Regular vendor engagement ensures you’re aware of new capabilities, best practices from other customers, and platform roadmap developments.

Participate in user groups or communities where you can learn from peers using the same platform. These communities provide valuable insights about how others solve similar challenges, what optimizations have proved effective, and what pitfalls to avoid.

Provide feedback to vendors about desired enhancements, functionality gaps, or issues you’ve encountered. While vendors can’t address every customer request, systematic feedback influences product development priorities and demonstrates that you’re an engaged customer invested in the platform’s success.

Conclusion: Maximizing ERP Investment Value

The 90-day ERP health check represents a critical but often overlooked step in maximizing return on ERP investment. Implementation doesn’t end at go-live—it transitions to optimization and continuous improvement that determines whether systems deliver 40% of potential value or 90%+ of potential value over their lifecycle.

Distribution companies that conduct systematic post-implementation assessments consistently outperform those that consider implementation “done” once systems go live. They identify and address configuration gaps, training needs, and process misalignments before they become entrenched. They build continuous improvement cultures that treat systems as living capabilities requiring ongoing attention rather than finished projects. And they realize substantially higher returns on their ERP investments through operational improvements, enhanced user adoption, and better business intelligence.

The 90-day timeframe provides optimal balance—users have sufficient experience to provide meaningful feedback, but operations haven’t yet ossified around suboptimal approaches. Optimization opportunities are still manageable in scope and number. And organizational memory of implementation objectives and design decisions remains fresh enough to inform assessment.

For mid-market distribution companies operating cloud-native platforms like Bizowie, post-implementation optimization is particularly valuable because the platform’s flexibility and configurability enable rapid improvements once opportunities are identified. Configuration changes that might require vendor professional services or extensive IT involvement in legacy systems can often be addressed quickly through administrative access and built-in customization capabilities.

When you’re ready to see how Bizowie’s intuitive configuration, comprehensive training resources, and responsive support enable effective post-implementation optimization—ensuring distribution companies realize maximum value from their ERP investments rather than accepting suboptimal implementations as permanent reality—schedule a demonstration to explore how modern distribution ERP platforms support not just initial implementation but ongoing continuous improvement that drives long-term operational excellence.

The most successful ERP implementations aren’t those with the most elaborate plans or the longest timelines. They’re implementations followed by systematic optimization that ensures systems continually evolve to deliver increasing value. That optimization journey begins with recognizing that go-live isn’t the finish line—it’s the starting line for continuous improvement that transforms acceptable implementations into exceptional operational capabilities.