Coordinating vendors during enterprise software implementations can feel like herding cats — unpredictable, scattered, and frustrating. With multiple moving parts, diverse stakeholders, and competing priorities, managing external software vendors or service providers is one of the most complex — and consequential — tasks in a project manager’s role. Done poorly, it can derail timelines and inflate budgets. Done well, it can be the difference between failure and success.
Misaligned expectations pose some of the most common challenges. Vendors and internal teams often walk into projects with different interpretations of scope, responsibilities, or deliverables. A vendor might assume that certain system customizations are outside the contract, while the client expects them as baseline. These misalignments can lead to delays, rework, or even disputes. The solution lies in clear, detailed contracts with defined deliverables and shared milestones — backed by consistent project alignment sessions and transparent documentation.
Communication breakdowns are a frequent issue, often caused by time zone differences, language barriers, or inconsistent communication styles. When vendors misinterpret requirements or fail to provide timely updates, it results in errors, missed deadlines, and growing frustration. Establishing a structured communication plan — with regular check-ins, agreed-upon tools (like Slack or Teams), and documented decisions — helps ensure nothing gets lost in translation.
Vendor reliability and performance can vary widely. Some vendors may overpromise and underdeliver, particularly when faced with complex technical requirements. A vendor might promote a scalable cloud solution, only to struggle with performance under real-world loads. To mitigate this, organizations should conduct thorough vendor vetting upfront, establish service-level agreements (SLAs), and monitor performance throughout the engagement.
Dependence on vendors for technical support and issue resolution can be risky. If vendor support is slow or ineffective during critical phases — like testing or post-go-live — project momentum can suffer. Setting clear expectations for support response times, escalation paths, and service windows in the contract is essential. Additionally, developing some internal expertise can reduce dependency and allow quicker issue resolution.
Managing scope changes is another major challenge. As project requirements evolve, requesting additional features or functionality from vendors can trigger resistance, unexpected costs, or timeline extensions. Without a formal change management process, scope creep can disrupt project flow. Every change should be properly documented, reviewed for impact, and approved through a defined workflow that both parties agree on.
Cultural and organizational differences also play a role. Vendors may operate with different project methodologies, decision-making norms, or definitions of success. For example, a vendor familiar with agile delivery may clash with a client's preference for waterfall processes. Early alignment on methodology and working styles — possibly through joint planning sessions or onboarding — can smooth these differences and promote collaboration.
Legal and contractual issues add another layer of complexity. Unclear terms around data ownership, intellectual property, or liability for system failures can become major points of contention. These should be addressed proactively with the help of legal and procurement experts during contract negotiation, and revisited during key project milestones to ensure continued alignment.
Finally, vendor resource constraints are a real threat to project delivery. Vendors juggling multiple clients may not be able to dedicate sufficient resources during critical phases. This can lead to delays or lower quality output. To mitigate the risk, organizations should negotiate for dedicated resources or priority status and maintain regular performance reviews to identify potential bottlenecks early.
A 2023 study by Gartner found that 55% of enterprise software projects experience delays or outright failures due to poor vendor coordination. This highlights the importance of a proactive, structured approach to vendor management. While coordinating external partners always carries a degree of unpredictability, with the right systems, expectations, and oversight in place, even the most complex projects can run smoothly — and herding cats can become a much more manageable task.
