Bigger does not mean a different start. It means deciding per phase.
With multiple sites, your own security policy and a procurement process, a lot changes around the project, but nothing at its core: measure one process at one site first, and only scale up when that holds. Start at ten sites at once and you discover the label problems at ten sites at once too.
What size does and does not change
Wel
- A rollout plan per site, with a decision point per phase
- Attention to administration: who manages the labels, the readers and the users
- Room in the planning for your own security and procurement requirements
- An integration that fits an existing IT landscape instead of sitting beside it
Niet
- A different order: here too, measure first, then roll out
- A bigger Proof of Value, because it stays one process at one site
- A guarantee that what works at site A works at B: we test that
- A separate product version for large customers
The biggest mistake we see at scale is that the test grows along with the ambition. A Proof of Value across three sites takes three times as long, costs three times as much and produces an outcome you still cannot trace back. Small stays small, especially with a big plan.
From test to rollout
Three phases, with a moment between each phase where you can stop.
01 / One process, one site
The same Proof of Value as everyone else gets. Pick the site that is most representative, not the easiest and not the hardest.
02 / One site in full
Scaling up within that site: more processes, fixed reading points where they pay off, and the integration to your ERP or WMS. This is where you find out whether the administration holds up.
03 / Rolling out site by site
Repeat per site, with the lessons from the previous one built in. Every site has its own material and its own habits, so every site gets a short check.