Richard Raysman and Peter Brown
The set of processes collectively deemed software implementation generally refers to a systematically structured approach to enterprise software that serves to integrate effectively a software-based component or service into an organizational workflow. Software implementation works best when, among other things, the process is refined and analyzed from the kick-off, the software configuration reflects each stage of the training and development process, and going live adequately deploys resources and assigns attentive on-site user support. Pitfalls resulting from a faulty software implementation process include the absence of leadership or management from the company, a lack of definition of the business process, and a poor communication infrastructure.
As with any software agreement, true and enforceable representations in software implementation agreements concerning the location and functionality of the software are integral to the success of the project. Arguably failing to adhere totally to these representations was the subject of a recent decision in federal court in the Eastern District of California. In Copart v. Sparta Consulting, in a case plaintiff’s attorneys labeled as sui generis, a jury awarded plaintiff nearly $25 million, less a $5 million offset given defendant’s success on one counterclaim, for defendant’s breach of agreements and statements of work that collectively amounted to a software implementation arrangement.
