Still on Dynamics GP 2015 or 2016? Here’s your risk exposure

Your GP system may still run, but that doesn’t mean it’s supported

For many businesses, Microsoft Dynamics GP has been a reliable part of daily operations for years. The accounting team processes invoices. Financial reports get generated. Month-end closes happen on schedule. From the outside, everything appears to be working just fine.

That’s one reason many organizations haven’t felt urgency around Dynamics GP end-of-life announcements. If the system still works, why worry?

The challenge is that software risk doesn’t always show up in day-to-day transactions.

A supported business system gives you more than a place to enter data. It exists within a larger technology environment that includes operating systems, servers, databases, cybersecurity controls, reporting tools, and third-party applications. Over time, those surrounding technologies continue to change, even if your ERP remains unchanged.

For organizations still running Dynamics GP 2015 or Dynamics GP 2016, that matters because both versions have now passed their Microsoft support deadlines.

Your ERP may continue operating normally for years. The challenge is determining whether you’re carrying risks that aren’t obvious in day-to-day operations.

In this article, we’ll look at the most common areas of exposure for organizations still running GP 2015 or GP 2016, along with practical steps leadership teams can take before a routine technology decision turns into an urgent ERP project.

First, clarify which Dynamics GP deadline applies to you

One of the most confusing parts of Microsoft’s Dynamics GP lifecycle announcements is that multiple timelines exist at the same time.

Some organizations hear that Dynamics GP support continues into the future and assume their current version remains fully supported until then. In reality, your risk exposure depends on which version you’re running today.

GP 2015 and GP 2016 have already reached their support deadlines

Microsoft’s lifecycle policy applies to specific product versions, not simply to the Dynamics GP product line.

According to Microsoft’s published lifecycle information:

In plain terms, extended support is the final stage of Microsoft’s support lifecycle for these versions. Once that period ends, organizations can no longer rely on that version being actively supported in the same way it was during its supported lifecycle.

For executives, finance leaders, and operations managers, the important takeaway is simple:

If you’re still running Dynamics GP 2015 or Dynamics GP 2016, you are now operating beyond those versions’ official support periods.

Why the broader Dynamics GP timeline creates confusion

Part of the confusion comes from Microsoft’s separate timeline for current Dynamics GP releases.

Newer versions of Dynamics GP remain on a different support path. As a result, business leaders often see future support dates associated with Dynamics GP and assume those dates apply to every version still in use.

They don’t.

Think of it this way:

A newer vehicle model may still be under warranty, but that doesn’t mean the warranty extends to a much older model from a previous production year.

The same concept applies here.

Organizations still running GP 2015 or GP 2016 should evaluate risk based on the version they use today, not the future milestones attached to newer Dynamics GP releases.

Once that distinction is understood, the next question becomes more practical:

What can happen when an ERP remains in place after its support lifecycle has ended?

Risk #1: Your technology stack can move on without GP

When executives think about ERP risk, they often picture a system outage or software failure.

In reality, one of the earliest warning signs often looks much less dramatic.

The first warning sign often isn’t a system failure. It’s discovering that other technology initiatives are being shaped by the limitations of an aging ERP.

Dynamics GP doesn’t operate in isolation

Even though users interact with GP directly, the system depends on a larger technology ecosystem that may include:

• Windows operating systems
• SQL Server databases
• Virtual servers
• Workstations
• Microsoft 365 tools
• Security software
• Payroll solutions
• Banking integrations
• Industry-specific applications
• Custom reports and integrations

As these surrounding technologies develop, organizations naturally want to adopt newer capabilities, improve performance, strengthen security, and simplify administration.

The challenge is that older ERP versions can become a limiting factor.

One piece of technology may be ready to move forward while another is not.

One upgrade can trigger a much larger conversation

Imagine a company wants to replace aging infrastructure or move to a newer operating system.

The project seems straightforward until someone asks:

“Will GP support that change?”

Suddenly, the discussion expands beyond the original technology project.

The organization may need to determine:

• Whether GP will work as expected in the new environment
• Whether third-party applications remain compatible
• Whether existing integrations need modification
• Whether additional testing will be required
• Whether the upgrade should be delayed altogether

What began as a routine infrastructure project can quickly become a business planning exercise.

Old ERP systems can delay other improvements

One of the less obvious costs of remaining on an older ERP version is the impact it can have on unrelated technology initiatives.

A company may want to adopt new operating system features, modernize its infrastructure, improve reporting capabilities, strengthen security controls, or implement newer business applications. But if an older ERP version has compatibility limitations, leadership may decide to postpone those improvements.

Over time, the ERP becomes more than an accounting platform. It becomes a constraint on other technology decisions.

This is important because the cost extends beyond IT.

A delayed operating system upgrade can affect security initiatives.

A postponed infrastructure project can consume budget that might otherwise support growth initiatives.

A compatibility concern can force leadership to spend time managing technology limitations instead of pursuing business priorities.

Over time, an older ERP can become a dependency that influences decisions far beyond accounting and finance. That doesn’t mean an immediate replacement is required. It means leadership should understand where dependencies exist and whether an aging ERP is beginning to dictate technology decisions across the rest of the business.

Risk #2: Unsupported software can weaken your security position

When people hear the phrase unsupported software, it’s easy to jump straight to worst-case scenarios. But the reality is more nuanced.

Running Dynamics GP 2015 or 2016 does not automatically mean your organization has a security problem. Many businesses continue operating older systems for years without experiencing a major incident.

The question isn’t whether a breach will happen tomorrow.

The question is whether your organization is carrying additional risk compared to a company running supported software and receiving ongoing updates.

Unsupported doesn’t mean unprotected

Cybersecurity is rarely determined by a single application.

Your organization’s overall security posture depends on many factors, including:

• User access controls
• Password and authentication policies
• Network security
• Endpoint protection
• Email security
• Backup and recovery processes
• Security monitoring
• Employee awareness

Security is a layered effort.

An unsupported ERP doesn’t eliminate those other protections. However, it can remove one layer of assurance that businesses often take for granted. As software ages, it becomes more difficult to predict how it will interact with new threats, changing technology environments, and growing security requirements.

That’s why many organizations periodically review older business applications as part of broader cybersecurity planning.

Cyber insurance questions are becoming more common

Many SMB leaders first encounter the unsupported software issue during a cyber insurance renewal or security assessment.

Insurance carriers increasingly seek to understand which systems organizations use, whether organizations actively support those systems, and what controls organizations implement to reduce risk.

For finance and operations leaders, this creates an important shift in thinking.

The conversation is no longer limited to IT.

Questions about unsupported systems can affect:

• Insurance applications
• Security reviews
• Vendor assessments
• Customer questionnaires
• Due diligence processes
• Board or ownership discussions

A system that appears stable operationally may still raise concerns during risk evaluations.

Security is ultimately a business decision

One of the most important realities business leaders should understand is that cybersecurity isn’t simply about technology.

It is about understanding which risks your organization accepts, which risks it mitigates, and which risks it eliminates.

If you’re still running Dynamics GP 2015 or 2016, now is a good time to ask questions such as:

• Do we know where GP fits into our overall security strategy?
• Are the surrounding systems and infrastructure fully supported?
• Have we reviewed the risks associated with running an older ERP version?
• Are our financial processes protected by firm controls and oversight?
• Would we be comfortable explaining our risk management approach to an auditor, client, insurer, or board member?

You don’t need every answer today. But these are questions every leadership team should be prepared to discuss. The goal is not to eliminate every risk. It’s to understand which risks the organization is willing to accept and which deserve attention.

Risk #3: Finance and compliance requirements don’t stand still

An ERP system may remain unchanged for years.

The business environment around it does not.

Banking rules change. Auditors change expectations. Customers demand stronger security practices. Insurance providers update requirements. New regulations emerge. Internal controls need adjustment as organizations grow.

All of those changes can affect the systems that support financial operations.

The software isn’t the only thing that matters

Many organizations view ERP risk through a technology lens.

Finance leaders often see something different.

Their concern isn’t necessarily whether the software launches successfully each morning. It’s whether the company can continue meeting business, regulatory, and reporting obligations efficiently and consistently.

As organizations grow, financial processes often become more complex.

They may add new entities.

They may introduce additional approval requirements.

Electronic payment methods may change.

Reporting demands may increase.

Audit requirements may become more detailed.

Over time, older systems can require increasing amounts of effort to accommodate those changes.

Workarounds can become hidden risks

Most businesses develop workarounds.

Initially, they’re usually created with good intentions.

• A report gets exported to Excel for additional analysis.
• A manual step gets added because an integration doesn’t handle a specific process.
• Someone creates a spreadsheet to track information that doesn’t fit neatly into the ERP.

None of those actions seem risky on their own.

The challenge appears when those workarounds become permanent.

A process that exists partly in GP, partly in Excel, and partly in someone’s inbox can be harder to monitor, document, and audit than a process managed within a controlled system.

The longer these exceptions accumulate, the more difficult it becomes to answer questions such as:

• Who owns this process?
• Where is the official version of the data?
• How is information validated?
• What happens if a key employee leaves?
• Is it possible to consistently reproduce the process?

Those aren’t software questions.

They’re business control questions.

Small gaps can become larger governance issues

Leadership teams often focus on major compliance failures because those produce headlines and penalties.

More commonly, problems emerge through a series of smaller gaps that were never reviewed together.

• One spreadsheet becomes five.
• One manual process becomes ten.
• One exception becomes standard practice.

Eventually, executives discover that critical financial processes depend on tribal knowledge rather than documented procedures.

That’s why organizations running older ERP systems should periodically review not just the software itself, but also the processes that have developed around it.

The goal isn’t to eliminate every workaround.

The goal is to understand whether those workarounds are helping the business operate efficiently or quietly increasing operational and governance risk. For many businesses, the problem isn’t a single process or spreadsheet. It’s the accumulation of exceptions that nobody has reviewed as a whole.

Risk #4: Familiar workarounds can quietly limit productivity and growth

When leadership teams discuss ERP risk, the conversation often focuses on what could go wrong.

Security risks. Compliance concerns. Support challenges.

But there’s another category of risk that’s easier to overlook because it develops gradually.

Opportunity cost.

What is the business missing by continuing to operate the way it always has?

“It works” can mean “we’ve learned to work around it”

Most organizations don’t wake up one morning and decide to create inefficient processes.

Those processes develop slowly.

A report takes longer to generate than people would like, so someone exports the data to Excel.

An approval process can’t easily be automated, so it happens through email.

Information gets entered in multiple systems because integrations aren’t available or practical.

Employees learn shortcuts that make sense individually but create extra work for the organization.

Eventually, those workarounds become normal.

People stop questioning them because they’ve been part of the process for years.

Ask employees why they complete a task a certain way, and you’ll often hear:

“That’s how we’ve always done it.”

The challenge is that familiarity can hide inefficiencies.

Minor delays add up

Many finance and operations teams are exceptionally good at adapting.

They keep work moving despite process limitations.

The problem is that adaptation often comes with hidden costs.

Employees spend time:

• Re-entering information
• Moving data between systems
• Maintaining spreadsheets
• Tracking exceptions manually
• Running reports multiple times
• Following up on approvals
• Reconciling information from different sources

None of those activities may seem significant on their own.

Collectively, they can consume hundreds of hours each year.

More importantly, they pull skilled employees away from higher-value work.

Instead of analyzing performance, improving processes, or supporting growth initiatives, staff spend their time managing administrative tasks.

Growth often exposes existing limitations

Many companies don’t feel significant pressure from an aging ERP when business conditions remain relatively stable.

The challenge appears when the organization grows.

More transactions.

More locations.

More users.

More reporting requirements.

More complexity.

Processes that once felt manageable suddenly become bottlenecks.

The organization discovers that what worked for a $10 million company doesn’t work for a $50 million company.

Or what worked in one location becomes difficult to manage across five.

At that point, the ERP discussion stops being about technology.

It becomes a discussion about scale.

A useful question for leadership teams

One of the simplest ways to evaluate productivity risk is to ask a hypothetical question:

If you were designing your finance and operations processes from scratch today, would you build them exactly as they exist now?

The answer often reveals opportunities hidden within long-standing processes and assumptions. Understanding those limitations is often the first step toward identifying opportunities for improvement.

Risk #5: Waiting can turn a planned transition into an emergency

Most organizations don’t intend to delay ERP decisions indefinitely.

They simply have other priorities.

• A budget cycle takes precedence.
• A major customer project demands attention.
• An acquisition is underway.
• The finance team is focused on year-end close.
• The operations team is managing a busy season.

Month after month, the ERP discussion gets pushed to the next meeting.

Then, eventually, something changes.

A critical integration fails.

A key employee retires.

An infrastructure upgrade becomes unavoidable.

A compliance requirement changes.

A software dependency reaches the end of support.

What could have been a planned project becomes an urgent one.

Emergency projects leave few options

Time is one of the most valuable resources in any ERP initiative.

Organizations that plan ahead can:

• Evaluate multiple solutions
• Align projects with budget cycles
• Schedule implementation during slower periods
• Involve key stakeholders
• Test thoroughly
• Train users effectively
• Improve processes before go-live

Organizations operating under pressure often lose some of those advantages.

When a business feels forced to act, leadership may prioritize speed over strategy.

The goal shifts from:

“What’s the best long-term solution?”

To:

“How quickly can we fix this?”

Those are very different conversations.

Data preparation gets harder under pressure

One area where delays often create challenges is data quality.

Over the years, most ERP systems accumulate information that deserves review before a migration.

Examples may include:

• Duplicate vendors
• Inactive customers
• Obsolete inventory records
• Unused chart of accounts segments
• Old addresses
• Outdated employee information
• Historical records that no longer serve a business purpose

When an organization plans, it can address those issues methodically.

When time becomes limited, the data preparation effort often gets compressed into an already busy project schedule.

That increases the likelihood of carrying old problems into a new system.

A rushed migration may reproduce old processes

One of the biggest misconceptions about ERP projects is that a new system automatically creates better processes.

In reality, organizations under tight deadlines often recreate the environment they already have.

The focus becomes getting off the old system rather than improving how work gets done.

Existing workflows are copied.

Old reports are rebuilt.

Manual processes remain in place.

Spreadsheets survive the migration.

Many of the same operational challenges continue to exist after go-live.

Companies often end up recreating yesterday’s processes in a newer system.

The goal is not urgency. It’s preparedness.

The purpose of planning isn’t to create pressure or encourage premature decisions.

It’s to maintain flexibility.

Organizations that understand their current environment, document their requirements, and evaluate options before a crisis occurs typically have more control over costs, timelines, and outcomes.

The real risk is losing the ability to decide on your own timeline.

That’s when companies often discover that their ERP roadmap was less of a plan and more of a hope that nothing would force the issue.

How much Dynamics GP risk is your business carrying?

By this point, you may wonder whether these risks apply to your organization or if they’re simply theoretical concerns.

Every company’s situation is different.

Some businesses have invested heavily in supporting infrastructure, documented processes, and strong internal controls. Others have accumulated years of workarounds, outdated integrations, and deferred technology decisions.

The goal isn’t to determine whether your company is “safe” or “unsafe.”

The goal is to understand where your exposure exists today so leadership can make informed decisions about what comes next.

Technology exposure

Consider the following questions:

• Are you still running Dynamics GP 2015 or Dynamics GP 2016?
• Do you have a documented inventory of GP integrations, customizations, and third-party add-ons?
• Have you postponed infrastructure upgrades because of GP compatibility concerns?
• Are you maintaining older servers, databases, or operating systems primarily to support GP?
• Has an IT project become more complicated because of an aging ERP environment?

The more “yes” answers you have, the more likely it is that GP has become a dependency that affects technology decisions beyond accounting.

Security and control exposure

Next, consider your organization’s approach to risk management.

• Have you formally evaluated the risks associated with running an unsupported ERP version?
• Do you know how GP fits into your overall cybersecurity strategy?
• Have you reviewed whether unsupported software could affect insurance or vendor security reviews?
• Are financial approval processes documented and consistently followed?
• Could the organization detect unusual changes to vendor records, payment instructions, or sensitive financial data?

Strong controls can reduce risk significantly. The concern arises when leadership assumes controls exist but has never verified them.

Operational exposure

Many organizations discover that the most significant challenges aren’t technical at all.

Ask yourself:

• How many critical processes rely on Excel spreadsheets outside the ERP?
• How many reports require manual manipulation before they can be used?
• Are key business processes dependent on one or two experienced employees?
• Could a new employee learn your processes from existing documentation?
• Do teams frequently re-enter information between systems?

Operational exposure hides in everyday routines because employees become accustomed to working around limitations.

Transition exposure

Finally, consider your organization’s readiness for future change.

• Do you have a documented ERP roadmap?
• Has someone taken ownership of the GP decision?
• Have you evaluated potential replacement options?
• Have you assessed the quality of your primary data?
• Do you know which reports, integrations, and customizations are truly business-critical?

Many leadership teams don’t have simple answers to these questions. That’s not unusual.

What’s important is recognizing the difference between having no plan and intentionally choosing a path forward.

What your answers may tell you

A few concerns in a single category may not require immediate action.

However, when issues appear across multiple categories, a larger pattern often emerges.

The most significant risks rarely exist in isolation. Technology, operations, security, and financial controls are often connected.

At that point, the conversation is no longer about software. It’s about business risk.

The good news is that risk becomes much easier to manage once it’s clearly understood.

That’s why a simple assessment like this can be valuable. It helps move the discussion from assumptions and opinions to objective planning.

Your three practical paths forward

Once leadership understands the organization’s risk exposure, the next question becomes:

What should we do about it?

There’s no single answer that fits every business.

The right path depends on your technology environment, budget, business goals, staffing resources, and long-term plans.

However, most organizations considering the future of Dynamics GP evaluate one of three approaches.

Option 1: Upgrade to a current Dynamics GP release

For some companies, upgrading to a supported Dynamics GP version may provide the most practical short-term solution.

This approach may make sense for organizations that:

• Remain satisfied with GP’s functionality
• Have relatively straightforward environments
• Need additional time before evaluating a new ERP
• Want to reduce support-related concerns while developing a longer-term strategy

An upgrade can help bring the environment onto a supported footing while preserving familiarity for users.

That said, leadership should evaluate more than just the technical requirements.

Questions worth asking include:

• Does GP still align with our business strategy?
• Will future growth place additional demands on the system?
• How long do we expect to continue using GP?
• Does an upgrade solve the underlying challenges we’re facing today?

For some organizations, the answer will be yes.

For others, an upgrade may simply serve as a bridge to a future transition.

Option 2: Stabilize and prepare

Not every company needs to make an immediate ERP decision.

In some cases, the best near-term approach is to reduce risk while developing a thoughtful plan.

This approach typically focuses on understanding and protecting the current environment.

Possible priorities may include:

• Documenting integrations and dependencies
• Reviewing backup and recovery procedures
• Evaluating user access and security controls
• Identifying unsupported infrastructure
• Cleaning up critical master data
• Improving business process documentation
• Establishing ownership for future ERP planning

This approach won’t change the support status of your software, but it can reduce uncertainty while leadership evaluates longer-term options. What it does provide is breathing room.

Instead of reacting to a problem when it occurs, leadership gains time to evaluate options and prioritize investments strategically.

For many organizations, that can be a valuable first step.

Option 3: Evaluate a modern ERP platform

Some businesses use the end of support as an opportunity to take a broader look at their processes and future requirements.

Rather than focusing solely on replacing an aging system, they ask a larger question:

What capabilities do we need for the next phase of growth?

That conversation often extends beyond accounting software.

Leadership teams may evaluate:

• Reporting and analytics requirements
• Remote and mobile access needs
• Industry-specific functionality
• Automation opportunities
• Integration requirements
• Scalability considerations
• User experience
• Total cost of ownership
• Vendor roadmaps and long-term viability

Approaching ERP selection from a business perspective rather than a technology perspective often leads to better outcomes.

Instead of choosing a system because it replaces GP, organizations can choose a system because it supports where they want the business to go next.

The best time to explore options is before you need them

One common theme runs through all three paths.

Companies that evaluate their options before a crisis typically have more flexibility, more negotiating power, and more control over project outcomes.

They can choose their timeline.

They can involve stakeholders.

They can align initiatives with budgets and business priorities.

Most importantly, they maintain control over the timing and scope of future decisions. And that often leads to better results regardless of which path they ultimately choose.

Replace uncertainty with a plan

If you’re still running Dynamics GP 2015 or 2016, the key takeaway is simple: a system can continue operating long after its support lifecycle ends.

Your ERP may continue processing transactions tomorrow exactly as it did yesterday. Your team may still close the books, run reports, and manage daily operations without interruption.

But the question leadership should ask isn’t:

“Does the system still work?”

It’s:

“Do we fully understand the risks, dependencies, and long-term implications of continuing to rely on it?”

For some organizations, the answer may lead to a GP upgrade. For others, it may mean stabilizing the current environment while developing a longer-term roadmap. And for some, it may signal that it’s time to evaluate a modern ERP platform better supports future growth.

The right decision will look different for every business.

What matters most is making that decision intentionally.

Organizations that understand their current environment, document their dependencies, and evaluate options early typically have more flexibility than those forced into a rushed decision.

They get to choose their next step rather than having circumstances choose it for them.

Not sure how much risk you’re carrying?

Many organizations know they’re running an older version of Dynamics GP but struggle to determine whether the associated risks are minor concerns or signs of a larger issue.

That’s why we’ve created a simple assessment designed specifically for SMB executives, finance leaders, and operations teams.

Download the Dynamics GP Risk Exposure Checklist

Use this practical worksheet to evaluate:

• Technology and compatibility risks
• Security and control considerations
• Operational dependencies and workarounds
• ERP planning and transition readiness

In less than 15 minutes, you’ll have a clearer picture of where your organization stands today and which areas deserve attention before they become bigger problems.

Download the checklist and start the conversation with facts instead of assumptions.

Need a second opinion?

If you’re unsure whether an upgrade, modernization effort, or ERP replacement makes the most sense for your business, we’re happy to help.

Our team has spent decades helping growing businesses evaluate technology decisions from both a financial and operational perspective. We can help you assess your current environment, understand your options, and build a roadmap that aligns with your business goals.

Schedule a Discovery Call

No sales pressure. Just a practical discussion about where you are today and what your options look like.

In plain terms, extended support is the final stage of Microsoft’s support lifecycle for these versions. Once that period ends, organizations can no longer rely on that version being actively supported in the same way it was during its supported lifecycle.

For executives, finance leaders, and operations managers, the important takeaway is simple:

If you’re still running Dynamics GP 2015 or Dynamics GP 2016, you are now operating beyond those versions’ official support periods.

Why the broader Dynamics GP timeline creates confusion

Part of the confusion comes from Microsoft’s separate timeline for current Dynamics GP releases.

Newer versions of Dynamics GP remain on a different support path. As a result, business leaders often see future support dates associated with Dynamics GP and assume those dates apply to every version still in use.

They don’t.

Think of it this way:

A newer vehicle model may still be under warranty, but that doesn’t mean the warranty extends to a much older model from a previous production year.

The same concept applies here.

Organizations still running GP 2015 or GP 2016 should evaluate risk based on the version they use today, not the future milestones attached to newer Dynamics GP releases.

Once that distinction is understood, the next question becomes more practical:

What can happen when an ERP remains in place after its support lifecycle has ended?

Risk #1: Your technology stack can move on without GP

When executives think about ERP risk, they often picture a system outage or software failure.

In reality, one of the earliest warning signs often looks much less dramatic.

The first warning sign often isn’t a system failure. It’s discovering that other technology initiatives are being shaped by the limitations of an aging ERP.

Dynamics GP doesn’t operate in isolation

Even though users interact with GP directly, the system depends on a larger technology ecosystem that may include:

• Windows operating systems
• SQL Server databases
• Virtual servers
• Workstations
• Microsoft 365 tools
• Security software
• Payroll solutions
• Banking integrations
• Industry-specific applications
• Custom reports and integrations

As these surrounding technologies develop, organizations naturally want to adopt newer capabilities, improve performance, strengthen security, and simplify administration.

The challenge is that older ERP versions can become a limiting factor.

One piece of technology may be ready to move forward while another is not.

One upgrade can trigger a much larger conversation

Imagine a company wants to replace aging infrastructure or move to a newer operating system.

The project seems straightforward until someone asks:

“Will GP support that change?”

Suddenly, the discussion expands beyond the original technology project.

The organization may need to determine:

• Whether GP will work as expected in the new environment
• Whether third-party applications remain compatible
• Whether existing integrations need modification
• Whether additional testing will be required
• Whether the upgrade should be delayed altogether

What began as a routine infrastructure project can quickly become a business planning exercise.

Old ERP systems can delay other improvements

One of the less obvious costs of remaining on an older ERP version is the impact it can have on unrelated technology initiatives.

A company may want to adopt new operating system features, modernize its infrastructure, improve reporting capabilities, strengthen security controls, or implement newer business applications. But if an older ERP version has compatibility limitations, leadership may decide to postpone those improvements.

Over time, the ERP becomes more than an accounting platform. It becomes a constraint on other technology decisions.

This is important because the cost extends beyond IT.

A delayed operating system upgrade can affect security initiatives.

A postponed infrastructure project can consume budget that might otherwise support growth initiatives.

A compatibility concern can force leadership to spend time managing technology limitations instead of pursuing business priorities.

Over time, an older ERP can become a dependency that influences decisions far beyond accounting and finance. That doesn’t mean an immediate replacement is required. It means leadership should understand where dependencies exist and whether an aging ERP is beginning to dictate technology decisions across the rest of the business.

Risk #2: Unsupported software can weaken your security position

When people hear the phrase unsupported software, it’s easy to jump straight to worst-case scenarios. But the reality is more nuanced.

Running Dynamics GP 2015 or 2016 does not automatically mean your organization has a security problem. Many businesses continue operating older systems for years without experiencing a major incident.

The question isn’t whether a breach will happen tomorrow.

The question is whether your organization is carrying additional risk compared to a company running supported software and receiving ongoing updates.

Unsupported doesn’t mean unprotected

Cybersecurity is rarely determined by a single application.

Your organization’s overall security posture depends on many factors, including:

• User access controls
• Password and authentication policies
• Network security
• Endpoint protection
• Email security
• Backup and recovery processes
• Security monitoring
• Employee awareness

Security is a layered effort.

An unsupported ERP doesn’t eliminate those other protections. However, it can remove one layer of assurance that businesses often take for granted. As software ages, it becomes more difficult to predict how it will interact with new threats, changing technology environments, and growing security requirements.

That’s why many organizations periodically review older business applications as part of broader cybersecurity planning.

Cyber insurance questions are becoming more common

Many SMB leaders first encounter the unsupported software issue during a cyber insurance renewal or security assessment.

Insurance carriers increasingly seek to understand which systems organizations use, whether organizations actively support those systems, and what controls organizations implement to reduce risk.

For finance and operations leaders, this creates an important shift in thinking.

The conversation is no longer limited to IT.

Questions about unsupported systems can affect:

• Insurance applications
• Security reviews
• Vendor assessments
• Customer questionnaires
• Due diligence processes
• Board or ownership discussions

A system that appears stable operationally may still raise concerns during risk evaluations.

Security is ultimately a business decision

One of the most important realities business leaders should understand is that cybersecurity isn’t simply about technology.

It is about understanding which risks your organization accepts, which risks it mitigates, and which risks it eliminates.

If you’re still running Dynamics GP 2015 or 2016, now is a good time to ask questions such as:

• Do we know where GP fits into our overall security strategy?
• Are the surrounding systems and infrastructure fully supported?
• Have we reviewed the risks associated with running an older ERP version?
• Are our financial processes protected by firm controls and oversight?
• Would we be comfortable explaining our risk management approach to an auditor, client, insurer, or board member?

You don’t need every answer today. But these are questions every leadership team should be prepared to discuss. The goal is not to eliminate every risk. It’s to understand which risks the organization is willing to accept and which deserve attention.

Risk #3: Finance and compliance requirements don’t stand still

An ERP system may remain unchanged for years.

The business environment around it does not.

Banking rules change. Auditors change expectations. Customers demand stronger security practices. Insurance providers update requirements. New regulations emerge. Internal controls need adjustment as organizations grow.

All of those changes can affect the systems that support financial operations.

The software isn’t the only thing that matters

Many organizations view ERP risk through a technology lens.

Finance leaders often see something different.

Their concern isn’t necessarily whether the software launches successfully each morning. It’s whether the company can continue meeting business, regulatory, and reporting obligations efficiently and consistently.

As organizations grow, financial processes often become more complex.

They may add new entities.

They may introduce additional approval requirements.

Electronic payment methods may change.

Reporting demands may increase.

Audit requirements may become more detailed.

Over time, older systems can require increasing amounts of effort to accommodate those changes.

Workarounds can become hidden risks

Most businesses develop workarounds.

Initially, they’re usually created with good intentions.

• A report gets exported to Excel for additional analysis.
• A manual step gets added because an integration doesn’t handle a specific process.
• Someone creates a spreadsheet to track information that doesn’t fit neatly into the ERP.

None of those actions seem risky on their own.

The challenge appears when those workarounds become permanent.

A process that exists partly in GP, partly in Excel, and partly in someone’s inbox can be harder to monitor, document, and audit than a process managed within a controlled system.

The longer these exceptions accumulate, the more difficult it becomes to answer questions such as:

• Who owns this process?
• Where is the official version of the data?
• How is information validated?
• What happens if a key employee leaves?
• Is it possible to consistently reproduce the process?

Those aren’t software questions.

They’re business control questions.

Small gaps can become larger governance issues

Leadership teams often focus on major compliance failures because those produce headlines and penalties.

More commonly, problems emerge through a series of smaller gaps that were never reviewed together.

• One spreadsheet becomes five.
• One manual process becomes ten.
• One exception becomes standard practice.

Eventually, executives discover that critical financial processes depend on tribal knowledge rather than documented procedures.

That’s why organizations running older ERP systems should periodically review not just the software itself, but also the processes that have developed around it.

The goal isn’t to eliminate every workaround.

The goal is to understand whether those workarounds are helping the business operate efficiently or quietly increasing operational and governance risk. For many businesses, the problem isn’t a single process or spreadsheet. It’s the accumulation of exceptions that nobody has reviewed as a whole.

Risk #4: Familiar workarounds can quietly limit productivity and growth

When leadership teams discuss ERP risk, the conversation often focuses on what could go wrong.

Security risks. Compliance concerns. Support challenges.

But there’s another category of risk that’s easier to overlook because it develops gradually.

Opportunity cost.

What is the business missing by continuing to operate the way it always has?

“It works” can mean “we’ve learned to work around it”

Most organizations don’t wake up one morning and decide to create inefficient processes.

Those processes develop slowly.

A report takes longer to generate than people would like, so someone exports the data to Excel.

An approval process can’t easily be automated, so it happens through email.

Information gets entered in multiple systems because integrations aren’t available or practical.

Employees learn shortcuts that make sense individually but create extra work for the organization.

Eventually, those workarounds become normal.

People stop questioning them because they’ve been part of the process for years.

Ask employees why they complete a task a certain way, and you’ll often hear:

“That’s how we’ve always done it.”

The challenge is that familiarity can hide inefficiencies.

Minor delays add up

Many finance and operations teams are exceptionally good at adapting.

They keep work moving despite process limitations.

The problem is that adaptation often comes with hidden costs.

Employees spend time:

• Re-entering information
• Moving data between systems
• Maintaining spreadsheets
• Tracking exceptions manually
• Running reports multiple times
• Following up on approvals
• Reconciling information from different sources

None of those activities may seem significant on their own.

Collectively, they can consume hundreds of hours each year.

More importantly, they pull skilled employees away from higher-value work.

Instead of analyzing performance, improving processes, or supporting growth initiatives, staff spend their time managing administrative tasks.

Growth often exposes existing limitations

Many companies don’t feel significant pressure from an aging ERP when business conditions remain relatively stable.

The challenge appears when the organization grows.

More transactions.

More locations.

More users.

More reporting requirements.

More complexity.

Processes that once felt manageable suddenly become bottlenecks.

The organization discovers that what worked for a $10 million company doesn’t work for a $50 million company.

Or what worked in one location becomes difficult to manage across five.

At that point, the ERP discussion stops being about technology.

It becomes a discussion about scale.

A useful question for leadership teams

One of the simplest ways to evaluate productivity risk is to ask a hypothetical question:

If you were designing your finance and operations processes from scratch today, would you build them exactly as they exist now?

The answer often reveals opportunities hidden within long-standing processes and assumptions. Understanding those limitations is often the first step toward identifying opportunities for improvement.

Risk #5: Waiting can turn a planned transition into an emergency

Most organizations don’t intend to delay ERP decisions indefinitely.

They simply have other priorities.

• A budget cycle takes precedence.
• A major customer project demands attention.
• An acquisition is underway.
• The finance team is focused on year-end close.
• The operations team is managing a busy season.

Month after month, the ERP discussion gets pushed to the next meeting.

Then, eventually, something changes.

A critical integration fails.

A key employee retires.

An infrastructure upgrade becomes unavoidable.

A compliance requirement changes.

A software dependency reaches the end of support.

What could have been a planned project becomes an urgent one.

Emergency projects leave few options

Time is one of the most valuable resources in any ERP initiative.

Organizations that plan ahead can:

• Evaluate multiple solutions
• Align projects with budget cycles
• Schedule implementation during slower periods
• Involve key stakeholders
• Test thoroughly
• Train users effectively
• Improve processes before go-live

Organizations operating under pressure often lose some of those advantages.

When a business feels forced to act, leadership may prioritize speed over strategy.

The goal shifts from:

“What’s the best long-term solution?”

To:

“How quickly can we fix this?”

Those are very different conversations.

Data preparation gets harder under pressure

One area where delays often create challenges is data quality.

Over the years, most ERP systems accumulate information that deserves review before a migration.

Examples may include:

• Duplicate vendors
• Inactive customers
• Obsolete inventory records
• Unused chart of accounts segments
• Old addresses
• Outdated employee information
• Historical records that no longer serve a business purpose

When an organization plans, it can address those issues methodically.

When time becomes limited, the data preparation effort often gets compressed into an already busy project schedule.

That increases the likelihood of carrying old problems into a new system.

A rushed migration may reproduce old processes

One of the biggest misconceptions about ERP projects is that a new system automatically creates better processes.

In reality, organizations under tight deadlines often recreate the environment they already have.

The focus becomes getting off the old system rather than improving how work gets done.

Existing workflows are copied.

Old reports are rebuilt.

Manual processes remain in place.

Spreadsheets survive the migration.

Many of the same operational challenges continue to exist after go-live.

Companies often end up recreating yesterday’s processes in a newer system.

The goal is not urgency. It’s preparedness.

The purpose of planning isn’t to create pressure or encourage premature decisions.

It’s to maintain flexibility.

Organizations that understand their current environment, document their requirements, and evaluate options before a crisis occurs typically have more control over costs, timelines, and outcomes.

The real risk is losing the ability to decide on your own timeline.

That’s when companies often discover that their ERP roadmap was less of a plan and more of a hope that nothing would force the issue.

How much Dynamics GP risk is your business carrying?

By this point, you may wonder whether these risks apply to your organization or if they’re simply theoretical concerns.

Every company’s situation is different.

Some businesses have invested heavily in supporting infrastructure, documented processes, and strong internal controls. Others have accumulated years of workarounds, outdated integrations, and deferred technology decisions.

The goal isn’t to determine whether your company is “safe” or “unsafe.”

The goal is to understand where your exposure exists today so leadership can make informed decisions about what comes next.

Technology exposure

Consider the following questions:

• Are you still running Dynamics GP 2015 or Dynamics GP 2016?
• Do you have a documented inventory of GP integrations, customizations, and third-party add-ons?
• Have you postponed infrastructure upgrades because of GP compatibility concerns?
• Are you maintaining older servers, databases, or operating systems primarily to support GP?
• Has an IT project become more complicated because of an aging ERP environment?

The more “yes” answers you have, the more likely it is that GP has become a dependency that affects technology decisions beyond accounting.

Security and control exposure

Next, consider your organization’s approach to risk management.

• Have you formally evaluated the risks associated with running an unsupported ERP version?
• Do you know how GP fits into your overall cybersecurity strategy?
• Have you reviewed whether unsupported software could affect insurance or vendor security reviews?
• Are financial approval processes documented and consistently followed?
• Could the organization detect unusual changes to vendor records, payment instructions, or sensitive financial data?

Strong controls can reduce risk significantly. The concern arises when leadership assumes controls exist but has never verified them.

Operational exposure

Many organizations discover that the most significant challenges aren’t technical at all.

Ask yourself:

• How many critical processes rely on Excel spreadsheets outside the ERP?
• How many reports require manual manipulation before they can be used?
• Are key business processes dependent on one or two experienced employees?
• Could a new employee learn your processes from existing documentation?
• Do teams frequently re-enter information between systems?

Operational exposure hides in everyday routines because employees become accustomed to working around limitations.

Transition exposure

Finally, consider your organization’s readiness for future change.

• Do you have a documented ERP roadmap?
• Has someone taken ownership of the GP decision?
• Have you evaluated potential replacement options?
• Have you assessed the quality of your primary data?
• Do you know which reports, integrations, and customizations are truly business-critical?

Many leadership teams don’t have simple answers to these questions. That’s not unusual.

What’s important is recognizing the difference between having no plan and intentionally choosing a path forward.

What your answers may tell you

A few concerns in a single category may not require immediate action.

However, when issues appear across multiple categories, a larger pattern often emerges.

The most significant risks rarely exist in isolation. Technology, operations, security, and financial controls are often connected.

At that point, the conversation is no longer about software. It’s about business risk.

The good news is that risk becomes much easier to manage once it’s clearly understood.

That’s why a simple assessment like this can be valuable. It helps move the discussion from assumptions and opinions to objective planning.

Your three practical paths forward

Once leadership understands the organization’s risk exposure, the next question becomes:

What should we do about it?

There’s no single answer that fits every business.

The right path depends on your technology environment, budget, business goals, staffing resources, and long-term plans.

However, most organizations considering the future of Dynamics GP evaluate one of three approaches.

Option 1: Upgrade to a current Dynamics GP release

For some companies, upgrading to a supported Dynamics GP version may provide the most practical short-term solution.

This approach may make sense for organizations that:

• Remain satisfied with GP’s functionality
• Have relatively straightforward environments
• Need additional time before evaluating a new ERP
• Want to reduce support-related concerns while developing a longer-term strategy

An upgrade can help bring the environment onto a supported footing while preserving familiarity for users.

That said, leadership should evaluate more than just the technical requirements.

Questions worth asking include:

• Does GP still align with our business strategy?
• Will future growth place additional demands on the system?
• How long do we expect to continue using GP?
• Does an upgrade solve the underlying challenges we’re facing today?

For some organizations, the answer will be yes.

For others, an upgrade may simply serve as a bridge to a future transition.

Option 2: Stabilize and prepare

Not every company needs to make an immediate ERP decision.

In some cases, the best near-term approach is to reduce risk while developing a thoughtful plan.

This approach typically focuses on understanding and protecting the current environment.

Possible priorities may include:

• Documenting integrations and dependencies
• Reviewing backup and recovery procedures
• Evaluating user access and security controls
• Identifying unsupported infrastructure
• Cleaning up critical master data
• Improving business process documentation
• Establishing ownership for future ERP planning

This approach won’t change the support status of your software, but it can reduce uncertainty while leadership evaluates longer-term options. What it does provide is breathing room.

Instead of reacting to a problem when it occurs, leadership gains time to evaluate options and prioritize investments strategically.

For many organizations, that can be a valuable first step.

Option 3: Evaluate a modern ERP platform

Some businesses use the end of support as an opportunity to take a broader look at their processes and future requirements.

Rather than focusing solely on replacing an aging system, they ask a larger question:

What capabilities do we need for the next phase of growth?

That conversation often extends beyond accounting software.

Leadership teams may evaluate:

• Reporting and analytics requirements
• Remote and mobile access needs
• Industry-specific functionality
• Automation opportunities
• Integration requirements
• Scalability considerations
• User experience
• Total cost of ownership
• Vendor roadmaps and long-term viability

Approaching ERP selection from a business perspective rather than a technology perspective often leads to better outcomes.

Instead of choosing a system because it replaces GP, organizations can choose a system because it supports where they want the business to go next.

The best time to explore options is before you need them

One common theme runs through all three paths.

Companies that evaluate their options before a crisis typically have more flexibility, more negotiating power, and more control over project outcomes.

They can choose their timeline.

They can involve stakeholders.

They can align initiatives with budgets and business priorities.

Most importantly, they maintain control over the timing and scope of future decisions. And that often leads to better results regardless of which path they ultimately choose.

Replace uncertainty with a plan

If you’re still running Dynamics GP 2015 or 2016, the key takeaway is simple: a system can continue operating long after its support lifecycle ends.

Your ERP may continue processing transactions tomorrow exactly as it did yesterday. Your team may still close the books, run reports, and manage daily operations without interruption.

But the question leadership should ask isn’t:

“Does the system still work?”

It’s:

“Do we fully understand the risks, dependencies, and long-term implications of continuing to rely on it?”

For some organizations, the answer may lead to a GP upgrade. For others, it may mean stabilizing the current environment while developing a longer-term roadmap. And for some, it may signal that it’s time to evaluate a modern ERP platform better supports future growth.

The right decision will look different for every business.

What matters most is making that decision intentionally.

Organizations that understand their current environment, document their dependencies, and evaluate options early typically have more flexibility than those forced into a rushed decision.

They get to choose their next step rather than having circumstances choose it for them.

Not sure how much risk you’re carrying?

Many organizations know they’re running an older version of Dynamics GP but struggle to determine whether the associated risks are minor concerns or signs of a larger issue.

That’s why we’ve created a simple assessment designed specifically for SMB executives, finance leaders, and operations teams.

Download the Dynamics GP Risk Exposure Checklist

Use this practical worksheet to evaluate:

• Technology and compatibility risks
• Security and control considerations
• Operational dependencies and workarounds
• ERP planning and transition readiness

In less than 15 minutes, you’ll have a clearer picture of where your organization stands today and which areas deserve attention before they become bigger problems.

Download the checklist and start the conversation with facts instead of assumptions.

Need a second opinion?

If you’re unsure whether an upgrade, modernization effort, or ERP replacement makes the most sense for your business, we’re happy to help.

Our team has spent decades helping growing businesses evaluate technology decisions from both a financial and operational perspective. We can help you assess your current environment, understand your options, and build a roadmap that aligns with your business goals.

Schedule a Discovery Call

No sales pressure. Just a practical discussion about where you are today and what your options look like.

Frequently Asked Questions About Dynamics GP 2015 and 2016 End of Life