Multi-site distributor · ~$310M revenue · 4 distribution centers

An ERP transformation that landed because the operating system was architected first

Sequencing architecture ahead of configuration cut go-live disruption and moved value realization from 14 months to 5.

Disciplines deployed: FOUNDATION → SIMPLIFY → LEAD
Measurement window: 16 months
Measures reported: 4

Condition 06 of eight

Transformation is stuck in adoption

The system went live; the behavior did not change. The investment is spent and the old way is still running.

All eight conditions

Present reality

A second ERP attempt was underway after the first stalled. Process ownership was undefined, master data was contested, and the system was being configured on top of an unarchitected management system.

Constraint

No one owned the end-to-end value stream, so configuration decisions had no arbiter — every disputed process became a change request after go-live instead of a decision before it.

Intervention — architecture installed

Present-reality read of the core value stream, process ownership and decision rights fixed before configuration, one transformation cadence with adoption evidence at every gate.

FOUNDATION → SIMPLIFY → LEAD → GROW

Mapped to the operating system

What was architected inside each discipline, and the measured consequence. Disciplines held out of scope are shown with the reason — nothing is implied by omission.

1. FOUNDATION
Build
Loaded in this engagement
Present-reality read of the core value stream; end-to-end process ownership and decision rights fixed before any configuration decision was taken.
Result: Open change requests at 90 days fell from 412 on the prior attempt to 63 (−85%).
FOUNDATION →
2. SIMPLIFY
Focus
Loaded in this engagement
Contested processes standardized to one way of working, and master data settled before it reached the system.
Result: Core-transaction adoption at 60 days rose from 51% to 94% (+43 pts).
SIMPLIFY →
3. LEAD
Execute
Loaded in this engagement
One transformation cadence with adoption evidence required at every gate — no gate passed on intent.
Result: Time to first measured value after go-live fell from 14 months to 5.
LEAD →
4. GROW
Scale
Held out of scope
Out of scope during the build. Loading growth work onto an unstable transaction base was the error that stalled the first attempt.
Result: Fulfilment accuracy reached 98%, which is the platform the growth work now runs on.
GROW →

ARC™ — the renewal loop around all four

Post-go-live improvement gates run as normal operations, held by internal process owners.

ARC™ →

Measured result — what moved, and by how much

Multi-site distributor · ~$310M revenue · 4 distribution centers — measured change over 16 months
Measure	Before	After (16 months)	Change
Time to first measured value after go-live	14 months (prior attempt)	5 months	−9 months
Core-transaction adoption at 60 days	51%	94%	+43 pts
Post-go-live order fulfilment accuracy	88%	98%	+10 pts
Open change requests at 90 days	412 (prior attempt)	63	−85%

Before → after, measure by measure · 16 months

Time to first measured value after go-live
−9 months
Before14 months
After5 months
Standardized against Time to first measured value — Benefit measured against the baseline register, not forecast.
Core-transaction adoption at 60 days
+43 pts
Before51%
After94%
Standardized against Adoption of the installed standard — System evidence at 60 days after go-live.
Post-go-live order fulfilment accuracy
+10 pts
Before88%
After98%
Standardized against Fulfilment / transaction accuracy — Same error taxonomy before and after.
Open change requests at 90 days
−85%
Before412
After63
Standardized against Open change requests / open issues — Open at 90 days after go-live in both cases.

The management system, not the software, carried the change; the transformation cadence stayed in place after go-live.

Transfer — what the client now owns

Internal process owners hold the value-stream standards and run the post-go-live improvement gates as part of normal operations.

Compass leaves business architects, not dependency.

Client identities, brands, and locations are withheld under confidentiality. Metrics are client-reported and measured over the window shown; they describe those engagements and are not a projection of results for any other enterprise.

Start with your own present reality

Every engagement above began with an honest read of the architecture already producing the results. Score yours, or schedule a conversation.

Schedule a callGovernance readiness diagnostic