Your processes aren't delivering what they should. The question is why.
The trigger is different for every organisation. The consequence is consistent: performance suffers, risk increases, and the organisation loses the visibility and traceability it needs to manage effectively.
Different triggers. One consistent consequence.
Identify which situation applies to your organisation. The Reality Check establishes which trigger is actually driving the problem — it's often not the one that's most visible.
Regulatory or compliance pressure
A new regulation has arrived — DORA, ISO certification, a sector-specific requirement — or a customer contract now requires a compliance standard the organisation doesn't yet hold. The risk is not just the fine or the lost contract. It's that rushing to comply without redesigning the underlying processes properly creates new fragility: processes that satisfy the requirement on paper but don't embed the control.
System live, processes not redesigned
A system went live — ERP, CRM, data platform — and the organisation adapted its old processes into the new tool rather than redesigning them around what the system enables. Workarounds persist. Data quality is inconsistent. The performance improvement that justified the investment hasn't appeared. This isn't a system failure. It's a process failure — one that typically surfaces six to eighteen months after go-live.
Processes documented but not followed
The processes are documented and were right when written. But practice has diverged from documentation — through growth, system changes, or habit. An audit has flagged it, or an incident has made it visible. The consequences: regulatory non-compliance, inconsistent quality, and a leadership team making decisions based on data that doesn't reflect what the organisation is actually doing.
Operational performance pressure
No specific external trigger — processes have simply become too slow, too costly, or too inconsistent as the organisation has grown. The financial pressure is real: margin erosion, cost structures that don't support the strategy, operational friction that slows decision-making and delivery.
The trigger is different. The consequence is consistent.
A compliance deadline, a live system, or an audit finding may look like different situations. The question is the same: what is actually happening, and what needs to change?
Deadline approaching
A compliance deadline, a customer requirement, or a planned improvement programme. The best time to engage — before pressure creates a rushed fix. A fix that satisfies a requirement on paper but doesn't embed the underlying control is often more expensive to correct than doing it properly the first time.
System live / programme running
A system has recently gone live, or a compliance programme is underway but not landing as expected. Processes weren't redesigned at go-live, or compliance activity is producing documentation but not behavioural change. Optume's role is to identify what's missing and embed it — without disrupting what is working.
Audit finding / no results
An audit finding, a regulatory notice, an incident, or the realisation that a previous improvement programme changed the documentation but not the actual performance. Optume starts with an honest assessment of what actually happened — and why — before proposing what changes.
The root causes are consistent.
ERP programmes are treated as technology projects. The capability required to deliver the change — and to operate the organisation in the new way — is underestimated, underfunded, or addressed too late.
-
Transformation capabilityLeadership bandwidth, programme governance, decision speed, change capacity — underestimated from the start.
-
Operating capabilityProcess discipline, data governance, middle management alignment, behavioural change — addressed too late or not at all.
-
Regulatory and compliance integritySector requirements, data controls, audit trail — often deprioritised under delivery pressure. A programme that weakens control has failed, regardless of go-live date.
Reality Check first. Recovery second.
We never propose a recovery plan before establishing what actually went wrong. The Reality Check runs in 2–3 weeks in ERP situations — accelerated because of the urgency. Then you decide. The Recovery engagement follows the gate.
Reality Check™
What is really wrong. Why. Capability gaps. Regulatory position. What it will take to recover. The decision document for the CFO and board.
- Root cause established — not assumed
- Capability gaps mapped against what recovery requires
- Regulatory and compliance position assessed
- Credible recovery path defined
- Decision document for CFO and board
ERP / Programme Recovery™
Governance reset. Operating model realignment. Capability uplift. Recovery delivered. Compliance maintained. Performance tracked against what the Reality Check defined.
- Programme governance reset — decision rights, escalation paths, accountability rebuilt
- Operating model realignment — organisation redesigned to match what the system requires
- Capability uplift — closing the gaps identified in the Reality Check
- Regulatory and compliance integrity maintained and evidenced throughout
- Recovery roadmap — sequenced, owned, tracked to performance outcomes
Angela Albiston and Martin Barker lead ERP engagements. 20+ years of ERP recovery across MS Dynamics, SAP, NetSuite, Oracle and Workday. Chartered Accountant rigour — we understand what the CFO needs to see, not just what the project board is reporting.
Talk to us about your processes — 30 minutes, no pitch.