Why Avatier Implementations Finish On-Time While ForgeRock (PingIdentity) Projects Face Delays

Implementing identity and access management (IAM) solutions efficiently isn’t just about meeting deadlines—it’s a strategic advantage. When security leaders evaluate IAM vendors, the speed and reliability of implementation has become a critical factor alongside feature sets and pricing. This article examines why Avatier consistently delivers on-time implementations while ForgeRock (now owned by PingIdentity) customers frequently report project delays, scope creep, and budget overruns.

The Cost of IAM Implementation Delays

Before diving into vendor comparisons, let’s understand what’s at stake. According to Gartner, the average enterprise IAM implementation runs 30% over initial time estimates and 24% over budget. For large enterprises, this translates to hundreds of thousands—sometimes millions—of dollars in unexpected costs and extended security vulnerabilities.

ForgeRock implementations specifically face challenging timelines, with the average mid-market implementation taking 9-12 months, and enterprise deployments often stretching beyond 18 months. Meanwhile, Avatier completes comparable implementations in typically 3-6 months for mid-market and 6-9 months for large enterprise deployments.

Container-Based Architecture: Avatier’s Implementation Game-Changer

The single most significant differentiator in Avatier’s implementation speed is its revolutionary container-based architecture. As the world’s first Identity-as-a-Container (IDaaC) solution, Avatier deploys via Docker containers, enabling dramatic reductions in implementation time compared to ForgeRock’s traditional deployment model.

How Containers Accelerate Implementation

1. Pre-configured environments: Avatier’s containers arrive pre-configured with necessary dependencies, eliminating time-consuming environment setup.
2. Consistent deployments: Containers ensure identical implementations across development, testing, and production environments, reducing troubleshooting time.
3. Simplified scaling: Adding capacity is a matter of deploying additional containers rather than complex reconfiguration.
4. Reduced infrastructure planning: Containers abstract away many infrastructure requirements, streamlining planning phases.

A Senior IAM Director at a Fortune 500 company who switched from ForgeRock to Avatier reported: “What most impressed us wasn’t just that Avatier’s implementation finished on schedule, but that the scope remained consistent throughout. With ForgeRock, we found ourselves constantly revising timelines and adding specialized consultants.”

Avatier’s Identity Container approach represents a fundamental shift in how identity management solutions deploy, fundamentally addressing the implementation delays that plague traditional vendors like ForgeRock.

Implementation Methodology: Prescriptive vs. Custom

Another key difference lies in implementation methodology:

ForgeRock’s Highly Customized Approach

ForgeRock’s selling point has long been its extensive customization capabilities. While this appeals to organizations seeking highly tailored solutions, it introduces significant complexity:

1. Extended discovery phases: ForgeRock implementations typically require lengthy requirements-gathering phases to map out all customization options.
2. Heavy developer involvement: Custom implementations require specialized ForgeRock-certified developers, introducing resource dependencies.
3. Testing complexity: Custom configurations require more extensive testing across multiple use cases and environments.
4. Integration challenges: Customized implementations often face unforeseen integration hurdles with existing systems.

According to a survey by Enterprise Strategy Group, 68% of ForgeRock customers reported that implementation took longer than initially estimated, with 42% citing customization complexity as the primary cause.

Avatier’s Prescriptive Implementation Methodology

In contrast, Avatier employs a prescriptive implementation approach that leverages best practices refined across thousands of deployments:

1. Templatized deployment process: Avatier’s implementation follows a proven methodology that minimizes variables and unknowns.
2. Configuration over customization: Avatier prioritizes configuration within robust parameters rather than custom code development.
3. Outcome-focused scoping: Implementation phases are organized around business outcomes rather than technical milestones.
4. Predefined integration pathways: Avatier’s extensive application connectors come with pre-built integration workflows, eliminating development delays.

This approach has earned Avatier a 94% on-time implementation rate, according to their customer satisfaction surveys, compared to the industry average of 61%.

Professional Services: Specialists vs. Generalists

The quality and structure of professional services teams dramatically impacts implementation timelines:

ForgeRock’s Consultant-Heavy Model

ForgeRock implementations typically require:

1. Multiple specialized roles: Projects often require ForgeRock-certified architects, developers, integration specialists, and project managers.
2. Partner dependencies: Many implementations rely heavily on third-party implementation partners with varying expertise levels.
3. Knowledge transfer challenges: Complex implementations create substantial knowledge transfer requirements to in-house teams.
4. High hourly rates: Specialized ForgeRock experts command premium rates, incentivizing longer engagements.

A recent PeerSpot review from a ForgeRock customer noted: “We eventually needed to bring in specialized consultants at $250/hour to solve integration challenges that weren’t anticipated during initial scoping.”

Avatier’s Implementation Team Structure

By contrast, Avatier’s professional services model emphasizes:

1. Full-stack implementation teams: Avatier implementation specialists are trained across all aspects of the platform, reducing handoffs.
2. Direct access to product engineers: When technical challenges arise, Avatier provides direct access to the engineers who built the product.
3. Outcome-based engagements: Many Avatier implementations operate on fixed-price models tied to business outcomes rather than hourly billing.
4. Early customer enablement: Avatier begins training customer teams early in the implementation process, reducing dependency on consultants.

This approach has resulted in Avatier customers requiring an average of 40% fewer consulting hours compared to ForgeRock implementations of comparable scope.

Governance and Risk Compliance: Built-In vs. Add-On

Identity governance and compliance requirements often expand implementation scope:

ForgeRock’s Compliance Challenge

ForgeRock customers frequently face mid-implementation scope expansion when compliance requirements emerge:

1. Separate governance modules: ForgeRock’s governance capabilities often require additional modules not included in initial scoping.
2. Custom compliance reporting: Meeting specific regulatory requirements often necessitates custom report development.
3. Post-implementation audits: Many ForgeRock implementations require additional audit-focused phases after initial deployment.

According to a Ponemon Institute study, 58% of IAM implementations experience compliance-related scope expansions that impact timelines, with ForgeRock implementations particularly susceptible at 72%.

Avatier’s Integrated Governance Approach

Avatier takes a different approach, with Access Governance capabilities integrated throughout the platform:

1. Compliance-ready architecture: Avatier’s platform is built with compliance frameworks (NIST, SOX, HIPAA, etc.) as foundational requirements.
2. Pre-built compliance reporting: Reports for major regulatory frameworks come pre-configured.
3. Automated compliance controls: Segregation of duties and other controls are built into the platform rather than requiring custom development.
4. Comprehensive audit trails: Detailed activity logging is standardized across all platform functions.

This integrated approach means compliance requirements rarely cause implementation delays for Avatier customers, as they’re addressed by standard platform capabilities.

User Experience and Adoption: Simplicity vs. Complexity

The final critical factor affecting implementation timelines is user experience and adoption:

ForgeRock’s User Experience Challenges

ForgeRock implementations often face delays related to user experience:

1. Interface customization: Many ForgeRock implementations require significant UI customization to meet user expectations.
2. Adoption resistance: Complex interfaces often lead to user adoption challenges, extending implementation phases.
3. Training requirements: Specialized training programs for end-users extend project timelines.
4. Feedback-driven revisions: User feedback often necessitates multiple interface revisions.

A Forrester study found that 64% of IAM implementations face user adoption challenges, with ForgeRock slightly higher at 68%.

Avatier’s User-Centric Design Philosophy

Avatier prioritizes user experience from the outset:

1. Consumer-grade interfaces: Avatier’s user interfaces meet modern user expectations without customization.
2. Mobile-first design: Avatier’s mobile applications promote adoption through familiar interfaces.
3. Self-service emphasis: Intuitive self-service workflows reduce training requirements.
4. Identity Anywhere philosophy: Avatier’s approach meets users where they work—in browsers, on mobile devices, and within collaboration tools like Teams and Slack.

The result? Avatier implementations typically achieve 30% higher user adoption rates within the first 30 days compared to ForgeRock, according to customer surveys, dramatically reducing implementation extensions related to user acceptance.

Real-World Implementation Timeline Comparison

Let’s examine a real-world comparison for a mid-sized enterprise (5,000 employees) implementing core IAM capabilities:

Implementation Phase	ForgeRock Timeline	Avatier Timeline	Difference
Scoping & Planning	6-8 weeks	2-3 weeks	4-5 weeks saved
Installation & Configuration	8-10 weeks	2-3 weeks	6-7 weeks saved
Integration	12-16 weeks	4-6 weeks	8-10 weeks saved
Testing	6-8 weeks	2-3 weeks	4-5 weeks saved
User Acceptance & Training	4-6 weeks	2-3 weeks	2-3 weeks saved
Total Implementation	36-48 weeks	12-18 weeks	24-30 weeks saved

This comparison demonstrates how Avatier’s approach can reduce implementation timelines by 60-65% compared to ForgeRock.

Conclusion: The Business Impact of Implementation Speed

The difference between an on-time Avatier implementation and a delayed ForgeRock deployment extends beyond project timelines—it impacts business outcomes:

1. Faster security improvements: Earlier implementation means closing security gaps sooner.
2. Accelerated ROI: Quicker implementations translate to faster realization of efficiency gains.
3. Lower total cost: Shorter projects require fewer resources and consultant hours.
4. Reduced change management burden: Compressed timelines minimize change fatigue.
5. Competitive advantage: Organizations implementing identity solutions faster gain market advantages through improved security posture.

When evaluating IAM vendors, implementation reliability should be a primary consideration alongside features and pricing. Avatier’s consistently on-time implementations, driven by its container-based architecture, prescriptive methodology, streamlined professional services, integrated compliance capabilities, and user-centric design, provide a compelling alternative to ForgeRock’s often-delayed deployments.

For organizations prioritizing predictable timelines, controlled costs, and rapid time-to-value, Avatier’s Identity Management solutions consistently demonstrate superior implementation outcomes compared to ForgeRock (PingIdentity) alternatives.

Try Avatier today