Context
The situation.
The incumbent system was supported but increasingly difficult to change. Three vendors had presented, and the internal shortlist reflected the quality of the demonstrations more than the fit to the business.
Previous technology projects had been led by the integrator, with limited client-side ownership of decisions and data quality.
Approach
What we did.
- 01
Requirements definition
Core processes, data, controls, integration needs, and reporting requirements were documented with the operating teams.
- 02
Selection support
Vendors were assessed against the same fit-gap criteria, with total cost and implementation risk compared alongside functionality.
- 03
Client-side governance
A decision log, risk register, and reporting cadence were established so the client retained ownership of the programme.
- 04
Readiness and adoption
Data preparation, process change, training, and cutover planning were treated as part of the programme rather than afterthoughts.
Outcome
What changed.
- The client selected a system on the basis of operating fit and total cost rather than demonstration quality.
- Implementation decisions were recorded and escalated through a client-owned governance routine.
- The business entered cutover with defined data ownership and a training plan for the teams affected.
These case studies describe representative engagement patterns. Client identities, specific figures, and attributable results are omitted. They are not testimonials, and they do not represent a promise of a particular outcome. Sector and engagement pattern are described; the client is not identified.
Discuss a similar engagement.
Describe the decision, the constraint, and the timeline. We will tell you which capability applies and whether we are the right firm for it.