Fit-Gap Analysis: [Package name and process scope]

Vendor-neutral fit-to-standard and fit-gap analysis for adopting a packaged business application (ERP, CRM, HCM, ITSM or another SaaS suite). It records how the standard product was demonstrated against the in-scope business processes, classifies every requirement as a fit, a configuration fit or a gap, evaluates each gap against an ordered set of resolution options (adopt the standard, configure, extend, integrate, buy, defer or reject), captures effort, risk and upgrade impact, records the decisions of the design authority and hands the approved items to the delivery backlog. The workshop pattern follows the "fit-to-standard" concept of packaged-application delivery methods (SAP Activate Explore phase; the fit-to-standard and fit-gap analysis guidance in the Microsoft Dynamics 365 implementation guide). Replace every [bracketed] value and every row marked Example.

Document control

Approvals

Revision history

Contents

1. Purpose, scope and baseline
2. Principles and classification rules
3. Workshop plan and participants
4. Standard demonstration results
5. Fit-gap register
6. Gap assessment
7. Gap resolution options
8. Effort, risk and upgrade impact
9. Decisions
10. Backlog handoff
11. Traceability and metrics
12. Risks, issues and open points
13. Sign-off
14. Glossary and references

1. Purpose, scope and baseline

1.1 Purpose

This analysis determines how far the standard [Package name] supports the in-scope business processes of [Organisation], which differences remain, and how each difference will be resolved. Its outputs are an approved fit-gap register, a decision record for every gap and a prioritised list of backlog items for the build phase.

1.2 Process scope

Scope is expressed as a process hierarchy. Level 1 is the end-to-end value chain, level 2 the process group, level 3 the business process that is demonstrated in a workshop.

1.3 Out of scope

1.4 Baseline

2. Principles and classification rules

2.1 Principles

2.2 Classification scheme

2.3 Decision tree

Apply the questions in this order for every requirement raised in a workshop. The value threshold is the weighted score from section 6.

3. Workshop plan and participants

3.1 Waves and sessions

3.2 Roles and RACI

R = responsible, A = accountable, C = consulted, I = informed. For gaps under the threshold in section 9.2 the product owner is accountable for the gap decision and the design authority is informed.

3.3 Preparation checklist

• Process scope and level 3 process list confirmed for the wave.
• Demonstration system refreshed, users and sample data prepared.
• Test script or storyboard rehearsed end to end by the demonstrator.
• Participants briefed on the principles in section 2 and the classification scheme.
• Pre-reading sent: current pain points, volumes, legal constraints per country.
• Decision makers for each process confirmed as attending.
• Capture tool ready (this register or the backlog tool), with ID ranges agreed.

4. Standard demonstration results

5. Fit-gap register

5.1 Register

5.2 Field definitions

6. Gap assessment

6.1 Scoring rubric

Weighted score = sum of (score x weight). Example threshold: gaps scoring 3.5 or more proceed to resolution design; gaps below 2.0 are proposed for rejection; the band in between is decided case by case.

6.2 Scored gaps

Example arithmetic for FG-007: 5 x 0.30 + 5 x 0.25 + 3 x 0.15 + 5 x 0.15 + 3 x 0.15 = 1.50 + 1.25 + 0.45 + 0.75 + 0.45 = 4.40.

7. Gap resolution options

7.1 Ordered options

7.2 Option equivalents by product family

Use these names to translate the neutral options. Product names change often: check the vendor's current documentation.

7.3 Options analysis per gap

8. Effort, risk and upgrade impact

Size bands (Example): XS under 3 days, S 3 to 15, M 15 to 40, L 40 to 100, XL over 100 person-days. Any XL item is split or escalated before a decision.

8.1 Five-year cost view for material gaps

Example inputs for FG-007: 57.5 build days and 20 run days per year at USD 650 per day give 37,375 plus 65,000; build includes USD 8,625 for testing and documentation, so build is USD 46,000. Licence is USD 5,000 per year.

9. Decisions

9.1 Decision log

9.2 Escalation path

Escalation rules (Example): the product owner decides gaps under 15 person-days inside one process; the design authority decides larger or cross-process gaps and every RO-04 to RO-06 option; the steering committee decides waivers to principle FGP-003 and any change to budget or go-live date.

10. Backlog handoff

10.1 Item mapping

10.2 Definition of ready for gap items

• Linked to an approved decision (FGD-NNN) and a process ID.
• Requirement written as a need with a measurable acceptance criterion.
• Resolution option and target technology recorded.
• Estimate range and run cost agreed by the build lead.
• Test data and test owner named.
• Security, data protection and audit needs noted.
• Dependencies (interfaces, master data, other items) listed.

11. Traceability and metrics

11.1 Traceability matrix

11.2 Metrics

Example check for wave 1: 30 requirements, of which 24 are FIT or CFG, 3 GEX or GTP, 2 GPC and 1 GRJ; 6 gaps were raised (all except FIT and CFG), so the rejection rate is 1 of 6.

12. Risks, issues and open points

Major items are copied to the RAID Log (project/raid-log).

13. Sign-off

14. Glossary and references

14.1 Glossary

14.2 References

Standard and licence note

Structure aligned with the fit-to-standard concept used in packaged application delivery methods, in particular the Explore phase of SAP Activate and the fit-to-standard and fit-gap analysis guidance in the Microsoft Dynamics 365 implementation guide. Only method, phase and product names are used; no workshop materials, accelerators, checklists or text from those methods are reproduced. The classification scheme, resolution options, scoring rubric and all other text are original and written for this collection. Check the current vendor documentation before use. SAP, SAP Activate, SAP S/4HANA, SAP BTP, Microsoft, Dynamics 365, Power Platform, Salesforce and ServiceNow are trademarks of their owners; this template is not affiliated with or endorsed by them. Template licence: MIT.