CASE STUDY

Restoring Execution in a Fragmented ERP Transformation

A multi-year program was approved and funded — but execution was breaking down across workstreams.

18% reduction in operational waste
Alignment across 6 business units
Adoption stabilized within 90 days
Executive reporting restored

The Situation

An enterprise ERP transformation was underway — approved, funded, and staffed. But with multiple stakeholders, competing vendors, and parallel workstreams operating without a unified execution framework, the program was beginning to fragment.

  • Enterprise ERP transformation underway across multiple business units
  • Multiple stakeholders and vendors operating without shared execution ownership
  • Strong strategy and technology design — weak execution alignment
Execution was fragmented. Outcomes were at risk.

Where Transformation Broke Down

  • Misalignment between the operating model design and how delivery was actually structured
  • Change management treated as a communications workstream — not an execution discipline
  • No clear ownership of adoption across impacted business units
  • Performance metrics disconnected from operational outcomes
  • Leadership alignment inconsistent across program phases

What We Did

Synerquest was engaged to restore execution alignment and embed change leadership directly into delivery.

Align

  • Established a unified execution framework across all workstreams
  • Clarified leadership roles, sponsorship expectations, and decision rights
  • Aligned program governance with operational accountability

Engage

  • Conducted stakeholder impact analysis across six business units
  • Built a change narrative grounded in operational reality
  • Activated business unit leads as execution owners

Enable

  • Designed role-based training and super user readiness programs
  • Embedded process change directly into system delivery
  • Established adoption measures tied to operational performance

Evolve

  • Implemented adoption tracking and feedback loops
  • Reinforced behaviors through leadership follow-through
  • Transitioned change ownership into sustained operational practice

What Changed

Area Before After
Execution ownership Fragmented across vendors and teams Unified under a structured delivery framework
Change leadership Communications-focused, reactive Embedded in delivery, proactive
Adoption tracking Absent Measured against operational KPIs
Leadership alignment Inconsistent Structured, visible, and reinforced
Reporting Disconnected from outcomes Integrated with executive performance review

Measurable Impact

18% reduction in operational waste within the first program phase

Adoption stabilized across all six business units within 90 days of go-live

Executive reporting restored — performance metrics aligned to transformation outcomes

Leadership alignment achieved across all major stakeholder groups before go-live

Change ownership embedded in operations — sustainment maintained post-program

Why It Worked

  • Execution was treated as a discipline — not a deliverable. Change leadership was embedded directly into how the program was run.
  • Operating model design and delivery structure were aligned before go-live — not reconciled afterward.
  • Outcomes were defined, measured, and tracked from the beginning. Adoption was never assumed.
  • Sustained performance was built into the design — not added at the end.

This is what execution-embedded change leadership looks like in practice.

If execution is at risk — this is where we start.

We work with organizations where delivery complexity, alignment, and adoption determine success.

← Back