When a municipality decides to modernize its software—whether it’s for permitting, licensing, ERP, public safety, or something else—it must decide early on: Should we go live with everything at once, or roll it out gradually?
This question comes up a lot in our work with local governments. The short answer is: It depends. Both big-bang and phased approaches have pros and cons, and the right fit depends on your team, priorities, and the system you’re replacing.
Here’s a quick rundown of each option based on what we’ve seen in the field.
What Is a Big-Bang Implementation?
With a big-bang launch, the new system replaces the old one all at once. On go-live day, everyone switches to the new platform, and the legacy system is turned off.
Why some municipalities choose this:
- Faster benefits - You get the full value of the new system right away—better workflows, automation, public access, and reporting
- Easier to support - You avoid having to run and support two systems simultaneously
- Streamlined training and messaging - Everyone learns the same thing at the same time, which improves coordination
- Time and cost constraints - It’s usually a shorter project, which often means lower costs
What to watch out for:
- High risk if things go wrong - If there’s a bug or hiccup on launch day, critical services like permitting or licensing could be affected
- Limited time or resources for testing - With a single go-live date, there might be less time and more complexity to test how everything works across departments, making it harder to catch issues before launch
- High learning curve - Everyone needs to get up to speed at the same time, which can be a lot to manage—especially for smaller teams
- Pressure to get it right - Big launches are more visible—and if there are hiccups, it can affect how the public experiences your services
What Is a Phased Implementation?
A phased approach rolls out the new system gradually—by department, service area, or location—over time.
Why some municipalities prefer this:
- Lower risk of disruption - If something breaks, it affects only one part of the organization
- Room for feedback - Early users can share what’s working (and what’s not) so adjustments can be made along the way
- More manageable change - Smaller rollouts mean training, testing, and support are easier to handle
- Budget flexibility - Costs can be spread over multiple years
Potential downsides:
- Longer rollout - Full implementation takes longer, so it also takes longer to see the full benefits of the new solution
- Integration challenges - Old and new systems may need to work together during the transition, which can get messy
- Inconsistent experiences - If some services are on the new system and others aren’t, it can confuse staff and public users
- Ongoing change fatigue - Prolonged implementation can wear people down—especially if support and training are stretched thin
So, Which Approach Is Best?
There’s no one-size-fits-all answer, but here are a few things to consider:
- How critical is system uptime? For services like reviewing plans, issuing permits, accepting payments, or managing inspections, even short disruptions can cause backlogs or public frustration—in those cases, a phased rollout minimizes risk
- What’s your team’s capacity for change? If staff are already at their limit, big-bang could be too much all at once
- What’s your budget flexibility? Phased rollouts are often easier to align with annual budgeting and procurement cycles
- How hands-on is your vendor? Some vendors are set up to support phased rollouts more effectively than others
Final Thoughts
Implementing new software in local government isn’t just about IT—it directly affects how you serve the public. Whether you go big-bang or phased, success depends on:
- Clear, steady communication with staff and the public
- Timelines that reflect your actual capacity
- A vendor that understands the realities of government
- Thoughtful testing and backup plans
Vision33 has helped dozens of municipalities weigh these choices and work through successful rollouts. If you’re planning for change, we’re happy to share what’s worked elsewhere—and what to avoid.