By Chris Wilson 
When agencies implement Synergist, one question seems to come up more and more recently: should we dive in headfirst or wade in gradually? Do we rip off the plaster, or peel it back with care? Do we take a phased approach to our implementation, or do it in one hit?
It’s an interesting debate, and one that can split leadership teams.
Some argue for the “get it over with” approach, others for a slower rollout that lets teams adjust. Both viewpoints have merit. Rather than take sides, let’s explore the factors that should shape your decision.
Your time investment
For a phased approach
Let’s start with your workload. Implementing a new system is a significant task, and you’ll be handling it alongside your usual responsibilities.
Be realistic about the hours required to manage change effectively. Map the implementation tasks, estimate the time commitment, and compare it to what’s already on your plate. If implementation overlaps with budget season, pitch preparation, or client deadlines, a phased approach can protect your time and sanity. Spreading the work over six months instead of six weeks can look appealing when you're already stretched.
Against a phased approach
However, spreading the hours doesn’t reduce the mental load. Even if you're only touching the project occasionally, it's still taking up cognitive space. Every process question becomes, “How will this work in the new system?” That background pressure remains, whether the project lasts six weeks or six months.
There’s value in a sprint: accepting the short-term crunch, knowing the light ahead is close. Sometimes a concentrated effort beats death by a thousand implementation tasks.
The productivity puzzle
For a phased approach
A phased rollout in which you manage the change one department at a time can minimise disruption. You train one department at a time, meaning only part of the agency is affected at any given time. Creative can continue working while accounts learns invoicing; Marketing can carry on while operations gets set up. Smaller groups also allow for more tailored training and a pace that suits each team’s comfort level.
With the scale and complexity involved, launching all at once would have overwhelmed the teams and support resources. As a business, we chose to give each area the attention it deserves.
Against a phased approach
But partial implementation creates complexity. Suddenly, you’re operating two systems. Data lives in different places. Handovers require translation. Project managers juggle multiple reporting methods. Running in parallel can create confusion, duplicated effort, and dropped balls.
There’s also the psychological wear of a long transition. Early adopters may forget what they learned before others catch up, and those waiting may grow anxious or disengaged. Sometimes one shared learning curve is simpler.
The beta test benefit
For a phased approach
A phased approach works like a beta test. A smaller group experiences the change first, giving you a chance to identify challenges early and refine your process. It’s particularly helpful if some teams operate better with stability or have strong resistance to change. You can also schedule each phase during quieter periods, making engagement easier.
It gave us the chance to learn the system, refine our structure, and adapt our training before scaling up for the much larger phase two. That experience has been invaluable; from building better templates to streamlining the training rollout, it’s really set us up for success in phase two and beyond.
Against a phased approach
But internal narratives spread quickly. A minor setback or some resistence amongst the first group can become exaggerated by the time it circulates through the agency. One vocal person reminiscing about “the old way” can shape expectations of "the new way" unfairly. Meanwhile, teams implemented later may feel overlooked or less valued. A simultaneous rollout maintains fairness and clarity.
The money question
For a phased approach
On paper, phasing can appear financially sensible. You might be able to spread consultancy costs over a longer period, making cash flow easier to manage. You also may have the option to turn on additional features which cost more at a later date, or gradually ramp up subscription costs by starting small, and working up towards having everyone on board.
Against a phased approach
But the cost of the new product alone is misleading. Running parallel systems and everything they require - licenses, integrations, management time - means multiple costs incurred simultaneously.
Alongside the cost of multiple systems, you're likely also waiting longer to see the efficiency gains you had in mind when you signed up for a new system in the first place. If your new system could improve productivity by 20%, stretching the rollout delays that benefit.
The learning curve
For a phased approach
Learning new processes gradually can feel more manageable. Turning on features one at a time allows teams to build confidence step by step, rather than trying to learn everything at once.
Against a phased approach
However, partial feature use means running two systems for longer. Processes shift repeatedly, and teams must keep adapting. That uncertainty can slow delivery work and increase mistakes. Sometimes it's cleaner to move everyone to the new workflows at the same time.
If another agency was considering their approach, I’d say it depends on your structure and scale - if your work is uniform and your client base small, a full rollout might suit. But for larger, more complex setups, a phased approach gives you room to learn, adapt, and ultimately succeed.
Whether you choose big bang or slow burn, the goal is not perfection - it’s progress. The worst implementation is the one that never truly finishes.
Choose your approach, back it confidently, and make sure your team can see the light at the end of the tunnel.
