Risk Management: How to Mitigate Risk During an Audited Upgrade with Microsoft Dynamics GP

Twice in the past year we've undertaken change management for the same client with auditing requirements; once for an upgrade of Microsoft Dynamics GP version 10.0 to 2010 and, the second time, for a migration of their entire network infrastructure from one hosting center to another.  If you have participated in an audited change management project for a Dynamics GP system, you know that there is no room for error when it comes to project execution and meeting audit requirements.  These projects are rigorous, detailed, tense, and, at times, tedious. 

In this first post of a 6-part Risk Management series, you'll see the 26 steps involved with our audited change management. In the next post you'll see goals, developing prototype criteria, testing criteria and the fall-back position. Then I'll follow with the groundwork, phases 1 and 2, what can go wrong.... and finally, the outcomes.

In the case of this client, the upgrade project proved valuable in developing the auditable criteria for the hosting center migration's change management. The information we learned from the upgrade also assisted in estimating the scope of the network migration project. We recognized that the significantly more complex network migration with numerous vendors and participants would take many more hours of work for communication, scheduling, contract negotiations, and documentation. Project management for the upgrade was 15% of the overall services budget; project management was 30% of the migration services budget.

The senior auditor for the engagement determined the requirements within the boundaries (we assume) prescribed by their firm. In the case of this particular client, the local team of an international firm acted as internal auditors, paving the way to ensure that the public parent company's team of yet another international firm had smooth sailing.

<... class="become-member ms-auto me-auto">