Case Study: Recovering a Stalled ERP Resetting Governance, Scope & Cadence to Deliver Value

The Challenge

A digital media and advertising company was in the middle of an ERP implementation that had begun to stall during testing.

Progress had slowed. Testing cycles were extending. Teams were revisiting decisions that should have already been settled. Leadership could see that timelines were slipping, but the cause wasn’t immediately clear.

Initially, the issues appeared technical.

But as the program progressed, a different pattern emerged.

Data issues were surfacing late. As testing advanced, problems tied to data conversion and accuracy began to appear, forcing teams to go back and rework scenarios they believed were complete.

At the same time, engagement across the organization had been uneven. Many team members were heavily involved early in the process, participating in design discussions and iterative changes. By the time the program reached testing, when their input was most critical, fatigue had set in, slowing progress further.

There was also a growing disconnect between leadership expectations and end-user behavior.

Leadership had aligned around using standard system functionality and adapting business processes accordingly. But that expectation had not fully translated to the teams responsible for using the system day to day. During testing, users began pushing back, attempting to make the system behave like what they were accustomed to.

End users often want to take a sticker from the new system, slap it on the old one, and keep doing their job the same way.

At the same time, communication gaps between technical and functional teams created additional friction. Technical teams were building to stated requirements, while business users reacted to outputs that didn’t fully reflect how their processes worked in practice.

Fixes in one area created issues in another, leading to repeated cycles of redesign during testing.

Instead of moving toward go-live, the program had entered a loop of rework.

The Solution

Altum Strategy Group approached the situation by resetting the program around governance, alignment, and execution discipline.

The first step was a controlled pause.

This allowed the team to assess the current state of the program without continuing to layer on changes. Altum reviewed the project plan, compared requirements to testing scenarios, and evaluated how data was being handled throughout the process. At the same time, they engaged both the implementation team and business users to understand where issues were occurring and why.

This made it clear that the challenge was not a single issue, but a combination of misaligned expectations, communication gaps, and execution breakdowns.

From there, governance was re-established.

Altum defined clear roles across the organization, from executive sponsors to business process leads to end users, ensuring that ownership and accountability were understood at each level. This created a structure where decisions could be made and consistently carried through.

Scope was then addressed directly.

Rather than continuing to pursue a fully optimized end state at go-live, Altum helped the organization reset expectations. The focus shifted to achieving core functionality first, with enhancements and automation planned for subsequent phases.

The approach becomes one of crawl, walk, run – establishing a stable foundation before expanding further.

Execution cadence was rebuilt through a structured operating model.

Altum introduced a RAID log – tracking risks, actions, issues, and decisions – to create a unified view of what was blocking progress. Working sessions were established to review these items, assign ownership, and drive resolution.

This created both transparency and accountability.

Finally, communication was expanded beyond leadership to include deeper engagement with functional teams. Altum worked directly with business process groups to understand their specific concerns and ensure those perspectives were reflected in the broader program.

Understanding those perspectives was critical, because the root cause often comes down to people, as much as process, or technology.

The Outcome

With governance reset and execution discipline restored, the program began to move forward again.

Testing stabilized as teams shifted from redesign to validation. Issues were surfaced and addressed more quickly. Decision-making improved, supported by clearer roles and stronger communication.

The program regained momentum – not because challenges disappeared, but because they were being managed effectively.

The engagement reinforced a consistent pattern – when ERP programs stall, the issue is rarely the system itself.

More often, it is a breakdown in governance, scope discipline, and execution cadence.

When those elements are realigned, progress follows.