Embedded Files
The Potential of Integrated Delivery Methods to Improve Delivery Assurance
The Potential of Integrated Delivery Methods to Improve Delivery Assurance
Across enterprise transformation, specialised methods and delivery approaches have increasingly replaced integrated, end-to-end delivery frameworks. This insight examines whether renewed use of Integrated Delivery Methods could improve estimates, identify dependencies earlier, accelerate decisions and make successful delivery less dependent on individual experience and judgement.
When the Programme Stops Delivering
When the Programme Stops Delivering
When complex programmes begin to fail, the underlying problem is rarely a lack of technical expertise. More often, unclear expectations, unrealistic timelines, weak governance and avoided conversations have allowed manageable issues to become critical.
This insight explores what effective programme recovery actually requires: establishing an unbiased view of the situation, rebuilding trust and creating the leadership environment needed to restore control and momentum.
AI Transformation compared to Digital Transformations, by Markus Munck
AI Transformation compared to Digital Transformations, by Markus Munck
In times where change is the new normal Artificial Intelligence Transformation (AIT) has emerged as a new field in companies and hence in consulting. But is it really new compared to the flavor of last month: Digital Transformation (DT). And if so, in what ways?
Standard consultancy answer – as to all questions – is: it depends. Depends on what… in this case we need to look further into and compare DT and AIT.
But first, let’s get one things off the table: for individuals, as employees in companies, as well as out of office experiences, both digital solutions and AI solutions have a profound impact on daily tasks. These are highly relevant for each individual and very often what comes to mind when we speak about DT or AIT. Very well so, but we are after the fundamental changes for businesses.
Below are three examples to compare DT and AIT:
1. DT improves processes; AIT improves decision capability
DT has often focused on digitizing, integrating and streamlining business processes. AIT goes further by changing how the organization analyses, prioritizes, decides and learns.
For example: A sales organization digitizes its CRM process so all opportunities are tracked consistently. With AIT, the company goes further: AI analyses pipeline data, customer history, market signals and sales notes to recommend which deals need management attention, which offers are most likely to win, and where pricing discipline is at risk.
2. DT requires change management; AIT requires cognitive and cultural maturity
Both forms of transformation require leadership, communication, training and persistence. AI adds a new layer: critical thinking, data literacy, source awareness, bias awareness, human oversight and the ability to know when not to use AI. The organization must learn to work with a technology that can be powerful, persuasive and sometimes wrong, which requires a change of mind-set and another culture in business. A more profound change if you will.
3. DT improves the operating model; AIT can change the business logic
DT can improve channels, processes, scalability and customer experience. AI can go further by changing how value is created, how innovation is developed, how services are personalized and how expertise is organized. This is where AI can increase the clock-speed of a company and hence also industry: faster analysis, faster testing, faster learning and faster strategic moves. In short: how quickly the industry moves forward.
For example: A manufacturing company improves production planning through better digital scheduling. With AI transformation, the company uses AI to simulate demand shifts, raw material constraints, customer profitability and plant capacity, enabling faster product development and new service-based offerings.
To go back to the question if AIT is something new or not, the answer is that it is. Although it is related to DT, the speed, scale, depth and impact clearly indicates that this is something else.
Hence it also needs greater attention from company leadership to get this right in order to reap the full benefits – which are very high. And unfortunately, the opposite is also a potential reality if not performed correct.
5 Lessons Learned from Complex Projects in the Agile Delivery Age, by Christian Hansen
5 Lessons Learned from Complex Projects in the Agile Delivery Age, by Christian Hansen
Over the past 10–15 years, many organizations have moved from traditional waterfall delivery to agile ways of working. We have seen the same across our clients, where agile delivery has become the standard approach.
And for good reasons. Agile brings clear advantages: Requirements can evolve, Learning happens during delivery & Value is delivered incrementally
But when working on complex, time-critical transformations with multiple agile teams, our experience is that:
1.Detailed Requirements Upfront Still Matter
Even in agile environments, detailed requirements gathering in the beginning of the project plays a critical role when multiple teams are involved. It creates a shared understanding across teams of what needs to be delivered and why.
Without this clarity Teams interpret scope differently, Dependencies are missed & Integration becomes difficult.
In complex transformations, requirements are not about locking scope, they are about creating alignment at scale.
2. Planning Creates Alignment — Not Rigidity
Following requirements, structured planning becomes essential.
This is where Scope is aligned, Priorities are clarified & Sequencing across teams is defined
Strong planning helps identify Dependencies, Integration points & Critical paths
At the same time, planning must remain adaptive.
The most effective programs combine Clear roadmaps, Rolling wave planning & Flexibility for teams to iterate
This balance between structure and agility is what enables predictable delivery.
3. Testing Must Be Prepared Early
One of the most consistent lessons across complex transformations:
Integration issues do not appear within teams; they appear between them.
Early preparation ensures: Test environments are ready, Data is available, End-to-end scenarios are defined & Roles and responsibilities are clear
Without this, testing becomes Fragmented, Reactive & High-risk
Early test readiness is critical to achieving stable and controlled delivery.
4. Dependency Management Drives Delivery
In multi-team environments, dependencies are not a detail they are the backbone of delivery.
Effective dependency management ensures that: Work is sequenced correctly, Teams are not blocked & Integration points are aligned
Without it, delays in one team quickly cascade across the program.
We consistently see that strong programs Identify dependencies early & Actively track them
This is key to maintaining momentum and avoiding late surprises.
5. Progress Must Be Visible at System Level
Tracking progress across multiple agile teams is essential — but it must go beyond individual team status. The real question is not:
“Are teams progressing?”
It is:
“Are we moving toward a working end-to-end solution?”
Effective progress tracking Provides a consolidated view across teams, Highlights risks and misalignment early & Supports better decision-making
Without it, teams may appear on track, while the overall delivery is drifting.
The V-model in the agile context
In our experience a good way to structure complex agile projects is by applying the classic water fall V-model. This is still largely applied in regulated industries, for good reasons.
Conclusion
Agile has fundamentally improved how teams deliver, but in complex, multi-team transformations, success is not determined by individual team performance. It is determined by how well the full solution comes together.
Our experience across industries shows that the difference lies in combining agile execution with structure, transparency, and end-to-end ownership. Detailed requirements, aligned planning, early test preparation, active dependency management, and system-level progress tracking are not in conflict with agile, they are what make agile work at scale.
The V-model mindset reinforces this by ensuring that what is defined is consistently validated across the full solution, creating traceability and confidence throughout the delivery.
In complex transformations, agile delivers the parts, structured delivery ensures they work together
M&A - 7 Key Insights for Speed & Value Creation, by Mikael Dudas & Jon F. Fjellbo
M&A - 7 Key Insights for Speed & Value Creation, by Mikael Dudas & Jon F. Fjellbo
M&A IT separation - navigating the Maze: 7 Key Insights for Speed & Value Creation
Carve-outs are inherently complex, blending the challenges of a divestiture with the urgency of a merger. Whether you are driving a carve-out for a corporate portfolio shift or PE-led growth, success requires balancing rapid separation with operational stability.
Drawing from recent experiences, here are seven actionable insights to ensure your next carve-out delivers maximum value:
1. Timeline defines the Separation Strategy
Timeline and constraints must set the direction for all decisions, not the other way around. Establish what is truly feasible to achieve, focusing on Day 1 readiness and critical milestones.
2. Radical Simplification
Minimize complexity at all costs. Over-ambitious, highly customized, or deeply complex solutions risk the overall timeline and goal achievement. Unless there is a clear, proven benefit, keep it simple.
3. Buyer-Type Dependent Strategy
Tailor your strategy to the buyer’s infrastructure. An industrial buyer likely has existing, compatible infrastructure, while a Private Equity buyer may require a full, stand-alone, or “clone-and-carve” solution (unless merging into another portfolio company).
4. Proactive Data & Risk Management
Define your data exposure strategy early. Decide immediately between: "define and delete" (safer, cleaner) vs. "copy, migrate, and delete later" (faster, higher risk). Mitigate risk by separating critical data sets - including Intellectual Properties - before closing.
5. Strategic Vendor/License Separation
Refrain from early, blanket outreach to vendors. Instead, follow the natural cadence of contract expirations, starting 2-3 months prior. This avoids triggering premature re-negotiations or penalties, allowing for a structured, cost-effective separation.
6. People & Culture: Lead with a Vision
For large, distributed teams, establish a clear, simple, and memorable vision. Utilizing a "Sprint vs. Marathon" strategy (similar to the successful FLSmidth approach) helps teams prioritize short-term, versus long-term goals.
7. Early Incentivization & Rapid Execution
Secure stay-on bonuses and NDAs for key, critical resources early in the process. Ensuring key talent remains is crucial for data accuracy and continuity. Finally, from a people perspective: Get it done FAST.
Bottom Line: Base your decisions on the synergy case and track progress against that case diligently. A successful carve-out doesn't just separate a business; it sets it up to thrive independently from Day 1.
Effective preparation as the key to success, by Søren Kirchheiner Hansen
Effective preparation as the key to success, by Søren Kirchheiner Hansen
ERP implementations are among the most extensive transformation projects an organisation can undertake. They are known for being complex, lengthy and costly – and many end up exceeding both budget and timeline. Experience shows, however, that the projects which succeed share one thing in common: a strong and structured preparation phase, where direction, objectives and decision foundations are clearly defined.
An ERP implementation is not only about technology. It directly affects business processes, roles, data and the organisation’s way of working. Thorough preparation is therefore essential to create alignment between business and IT, and to ensure that the programme is anchored at leadership level with clear priorities and realistic expectations.
Why preparation matters
A solid preparation phase gives executive management and IT leadership the opportunity to:
Ensure that the ERP programme supports the company’s strategic goals
Establish a shared decision-making foundation across business and IT
Identify and reduce major risks before the project scales
Validate budget, timeline and resources based on realistic assumptions
Create organisational ownership and clear areas of responsibility
Once implementation begins and the project is fully staffed, costs rise quickly. Changes in scope, strategy or governance at that point often become both expensive and time-consuming. It is therefore crucial to create clarity and alignment early in the process.
Reach out if you are interested in further dialogue
The purpose of further dialogue is to discuss how your company can best structure the preparation of your ERP transformation, and how the decision foundation can be strengthened before a full programme is launched. Topics may include:
How preparation links to the overall strategic objectives
How to balance standardisation with business flexibility
Which experiences from previous programmes can be reused or need attention
How governance and role allocation should be established from the outset
Which approach and timeline best support the organisation’s maturity
The aim is to create a shared understanding of what needs to be in place before entering a full ERP implementation. Well-designed preparation is not about delaying the project, but about ensuring a faster and more successful transformation, where business benefits are realised earlier and with lower risk.
Reflections from an SAP Project, by Jon F. Fjellbo
Reflections from an SAP Project, by Jon F. Fjellbo
In recent years, I have been part of leading the rollout of SAP in the three Scandinavian countries: Denmark, Sweden and Norway. This is not the first time I have worked on an SAP rollout – on the contrary, I have done it many times before.
The project was delivered on time and significantly under budget, without operational disruptions and with a minimal number of incidents (tickets).
What is truly worth reflecting on is how simple we made it. The method was classic waterfall, where our primary tools were PowerPoint, Excel and Teams, as everything was carried out virtually with minimal travel.
In addition to this simplicity, the project had exceptionally strong governance, with the Group CEO leading the steering committee together with the three Scandinavian managing directors/sponsors. This created unique organisational anchoring, with tight and effective scope control – absolutely no deviation. It was also worth noting that the programme director was highly skilled and very experienced.
If you are interested in hearing more about SAP projects, feel free to reach out to Jon
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse