The problem
Standard systems come with predefined “best practice” processes. The vendor recommends that you adapt to the system. Sometimes that’s right – your process is needlessly complicated. Other times the standard practice assumes a structure, a volume or a discipline you don’t have, and the result is a beautiful process on paper and a mess of parallel workarounds in reality.
Our approach
We analyse each proposed best practice as a business decision, not a technical setting:
- What the practice assumes – data, roles, discipline, volume – and what you have now.
- Three options per process: adopt as is, adapt (with the customisation cost quantified), or keep the current process and explain why.
- Sustainability: who maintains the process after the consultants and implementer leave? Does the company have the people and time?
- A phased transition plan with the processes that change now and those that change after stabilisation.
How it differs by industry
- Discrete manufacturing: MRP planning practices assume accurate BOM, time and stock data – often missing and needing to be built first.
- Food processing: standard piece-based inventory practices don’t fit catch-weight and yields; adaptation is mandatory here.
- Services: standard project management practices can suffocate small teams; we adopt only what brings real visibility.
What you get
A system configuration you understand and can sustain over time, fewer expensive customisations and fewer “parallel” Excel solutions.