Hidden RFP oversights are sabotaging your data migration
SEP. 16, 2025
6 Min Read
Too many RFPs are treated as simple checklists of features and costs instead of probing the data pitfalls or integration hurdles that lie in wait.
An alarming 83% of data migration projects fail, and more than half run over budget. That failure rate signals a critical oversight in the planning stage: the migration RFP itself often ignores major risks. When those issues go unaddressed upfront, they inevitably erupt mid-project, blowing up timelines, budgets, and the IT team’s credibility with the business.
In contrast, a risk-aware, outcome-focused RFP sets the stage for success. If every requirement in the RFP ties to a business goal and includes a risk mitigation plan, vendors are forced to address potential pitfalls from the start. This leads to realistic project scopes, accurate budgets, and a migration that delivers value instead of surprises. In essence, the RFP becomes a tool for risk management and strategic alignment, making sure the project meets its timeline and ROI targets.
key-takeaways
- 1. Data migration RFPs often miss critical risks such as data quality, integration hurdles, and compliance needs, which can derail projects later.
- 2. Ignoring data quality or integration complexity during the RFP stage leads to costly delays, budget overruns, and eroded ROI.
- 3. Success depends on aligning RFP requirements with business outcomes rather than focusing only on technical completion.
- 4. A risk-focused RFP strategy that ties requirements to measurable outcomes creates accountability and minimizes hidden surprises.
- 5. CIOs who treat RFPs as strategic risk management tools secure smoother migrations, preserve credibility, and maximize business value.
Data migration RFPs often overlook critical risks that derail projects
Many traditional data migration RFPs have dangerous blind spots. They focus on high-level deliverables (like migrating X terabytes of data by a certain date) but ignore the gritty details where problems lurk. A vendor might promise a smooth, low-cost migration, only for the CIO to discover later that the RFP never required data cleansing or system compatibility checks. These missing pieces become ticking time bombs during execution, leading to delays, budget overruns, and operational disruptions when they explode.
- Unvetted data quality. Legacy databases may be full of errors or duplicates, yet the RFP glosses over the extensive cleanup required to make data accurate and usable.
- Underestimated integration complexity. The RFP assumes new systems will plug into the existing systems with ease, ignoring the custom development or middleware needed to connect disparate applications.
- Undefined compliance and security needs. Regulatory requirements (data retention, privacy laws) and security constraints are often omitted or vague, leading to compliance violations or last-minute rework when discovered later.
- Lack of stakeholder alignment. Without input from business units or compliance teams, the RFP can miss key operational needs. The result is a solution that technically works but fails to support critical business processes or reporting requirements.
- Unrealistic timeline assumptions. Aggressive schedules are set without accounting for data volume, testing cycles, or allowable downtime. Vendors bid on the optimistic timeline, virtually guaranteeing schedule slips later.
Each of these oversights can turn into a major issue once the migration is underway. When RFPs omit crucial risk factors, CIOs often end up fighting fires: performing emergency data cleanup, re-coding integrations, and pleading for more time or budget to address surprises. These unplanned detours erode the project’s ROI and delay the benefits to the business, while also damaging IT’s credibility. For example, simply ignoring data quality in the RFP can derail an entire migration.
"If every requirement in the RFP ties to a business goal and includes a risk mitigation plan, vendors are forced to address potential pitfalls from the start."
Ignoring data quality and integration complexity leads to costly migration setbacks
One of the fastest ways a migration goes off track is by underestimating the state of the data and the complexity of tying new systems into old ones. If the RFP doesn’t demand a close look at data quality and integration challenges, those problems will surface mid-project when they are far more expensive and disruptive to fix. Teams may then scramble to clean up massive datasets or build integrations that were never planned, leading to missed deadlines and budget blowouts.
Overlooking data quality pitfalls
Data quality is a silent project killer. Many migrations grind to a halt because the data being moved is riddled with errors and inconsistencies. If the RFP fails to require a thorough data audit and cleanup, a vendor might assume the information is “good enough” to transfer as-is, only to discover duplicate records or missing fields later that weren’t in scope. The project then stalls while everyone scrambles to fix the data. It’s no surprise that approximately 85% of data migration projects end up running over time or budget, often due to unaddressed data quality issues. Even if the team manages to finish on time with bad data, the new system won’t deliver value because users can’t trust the information. The lesson is clear: the RFP must make data profiling, cleansing, and validation a priority from day one, or the migration is practically guaranteed to hit trouble.
Underestimating integration complexity
Integration pitfalls are another major source of migration pain. A typical RFP might simply state “implement System X and migrate data from System Y,” glossing over the web of other applications that need to connect. Vendors often underestimate the effort to integrate the new solution with everything from ERP and CRM platforms to custom legacy systems. The true scope only emerges later, after the contract is signed. About 90% of CIOs have experienced a failed or disrupted migration due to the complexity of moving from on-premises to cloud systems, and only roughly a quarter of companies in that study met their migration deadlines. Missing connectors, incompatible data formats, and undocumented dependencies can each introduce weeks of delay if not planned for. An RFP that asks vendors to map out integration points and outline how they will handle legacy interfaces helps surface these issues early, rather than during final testing or go-live.
If issues like poor data quality or system incompatibilities stay hidden until execution, they inevitably blow up the project’s schedule and budget. Every week spent on an emergency fix is a week not spent delivering new business value. These delays and detours directly erode the migration’s promised benefits. And technical pitfalls aren’t the only threat; even a flawless technical deployment can under-deliver if the RFP was aimed at the wrong objectives. This brings us to the danger of misaligned priorities.
Misaligned RFP priorities undermine migration ROI and business outcomes
A data migration’s value comes from what the business can do with the data afterward, yet too often the RFP defines success only in IT terms (for example, “migrate all data by June 1”) instead of business terms. If the RFP isn’t linked to clear business objectives, a project can be on time and on budget and still fail to deliver meaningful ROI. For instance, an RFP might not mention improving data accuracy or preserving certain reports that users rely on; the vendor could meet all the stated requirements, and the business would still end up with a new system that produces unreliable insights or hampers productivity.
Misaligned priorities also lead to scope creep and disappointment. Partway through the project, stakeholders may realize that a critical capability is missing (because it was never specified in the RFP), forcing an expensive change order or workaround. It’s no surprise that roughly 44% of project failures are blamed on a lack of alignment between project requirements and business objectives. To avoid this outcome, CIOs should ensure every RFP requirement answers the question, “What business outcome does this support?” and involve business stakeholders in defining those requirements. When the migration RFP is aligned to strategic goals, the delivered solution is far more likely to provide the intended business value and a strong return on investment.
A risk-focused RFP strategy ensures a smoother migration with measurable value
To prevent these problems, CIOs can turn the RFP from a basic checklist into a true blueprint for risk management and value delivery. A risk-focused RFP clearly calls out where potential challenges lie and what business outcomes the project must achieve, so vendors craft proposals for reality rather than an ideal scenario. This extra diligence up front pays off: projects that embrace proactive risk planning have about a 30% higher success rate, meaning far fewer surprises and setbacks. In the context of a data migration, it might mean requiring a preliminary data quality assessment or a detailed cutover plan. These are relatively small additions to the RFP that can prevent huge headaches down the line.
An outcome-driven RFP also defines success in measurable terms, not just “finish the migration.” CIOs can set expectations such as “no more than one hour of downtime during cutover” or “at least 95% of records migrated without error,” and ask vendors to commit to these targets. With such criteria in place, it’s easier to filter out vendors who don’t have a solid plan for meeting them. Those who do bid will know exactly what they must deliver beyond simply moving data. This clarity aligns both the project team and the business stakeholders on what success looks like from day one.
| Aspect | Traditional RFP approach | Risk-focused RFP approach |
|---|---|---|
| Primary focus | Emphasis on cost, timeline, and basic deliverables. | Links each requirement to a specific business outcome or value driver. |
| Risk planning | No explicit mention of data, integration, or security risks. | Identifies key risks up front (data quality, downtime, etc.) and requires vendors to propose mitigations. |
| Stakeholder involvement | Requirements defined mostly by IT; minimal business input. | Cross-functional input (business, compliance, IT) is gathered to cover all needs. |
| Vendor proposals | Assumes ideal conditions; issues are handled via change orders later. | Acknowledges complexities early; vendors must plan for challenges and meet defined success criteria. |
| Success metrics | Success = data migrated on time and on budget (technical completion). | Success = minimal disruption and business goals met (e.g., data accuracy achieved, reports run faster). |
Ultimately, the effort spent on a risk-focused RFP is a fraction of the cost of a derailed migration. It establishes clarity and accountability from day one, making it far more likely that the project will hit its targets and deliver the promised business value.
"A risk-focused RFP clearly calls out where potential challenges lie and what business outcomes the project must achieve, so vendors craft proposals for reality rather than an ideal scenario."
Lumenalta and the risk-aware migration RFP approach
That risk-aware, outcome-centric philosophy is central to how Lumenalta partners with CIOs on complex data migrations. We act not just as implementers but as strategic collaborators, working closely with your team from the RFP stage onward to surface hidden challenges (be it unclean data or tricky legacy integrations) before they become issues. Involving stakeholders across IT, business, and compliance early ensures the RFP and project plan capture all critical needs and constraints. This upfront rigor means no nasty surprises will jeopardize your timeline or budget down the road.
In doing so, Lumenalta helps clients accelerate time-to-value while avoiding costly mid-project corrections. Every migration plan we craft includes explicit risk mitigation steps and clear success metrics, so progress and value can be tracked transparently. We recognize that a “successful” project isn’t just about flipping the switch on a new system, but rather delivering the expected business results on schedule and within budget. With our business-first mindset, a data migration becomes an opportunity to improve processes and insights, not just a technical upgrade. The result is a smooth transition where systems go live as planned, data integrity is assured, and your team immediately gains new capabilities, ultimately ensuring the investment pays off and strengthening IT’s role as a value driver.
table-of-contents
- Data migration RFPs often overlook critical risks that derail projects
- Ignoring data quality and integration complexity leads to costly migration setbacks
- Misaligned RFP priorities undermine migration ROI and business outcomes
- A risk-focused RFP strategy ensures a smoother migration with measurable value
- Lumenalta and the risk-aware migration RFP approach
- Common questions about data migration RFP
Common questions about data migration RFP
What risks are often hidden in data migration RFPs?
How can CIOs avoid failure in data migration RFPs?
How does aligning an RFP with business goals improve migration ROI?
What should a data migration RFP include to manage risks?
How can CIOs evaluate vendors during the RFP process to reduce migration risks?
Want to learn how data migration can bring more transparency and trust to your operations?
