PHAT turns decades of ERP programme delivery and assurance experience into a structured, evidence-based diagnostic.
ERP programme leaders don't deliberately make bad decisions. But pragmatic choices that appear entirely rational in isolation — reducing the scope of testing, deferring a difficult data decision, leaving a role unfilled, accepting a temporary workaround, compressing a delivery phase, allowing an architectural exception, or relying more heavily on the systems integrator — can become the root cause of serious programme problems.
Individual decisions can make sense when viewed in their immediate cost, schedule or delivery context. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good enough is, after all, a perfectly sensible business principle.
The problem is that ERP programmes are systems.
A compromise in one part of the programme changes the conditions somewhere else. Several individually tolerable compromises can interact. The consequences may not become visible until months later — during integration testing, data migration, UAT, cutover or even after go-live — by which time the original causal decisions can be difficult to recognise.
PHAT looks beyond whether individual workstreams appear Green, Amber or Red. It examines programme conditions, the evidence supporting them, and the relationships between them.
Assess the programme as it actually stands and PHAT begins to distinguish between what is working, what could be stronger, and — most importantly — what today's conditions are likely to cause tomorrow.
The objective is not another opinion about whether an ERP programme is healthy.
It is to give programme leadership an evidence-based understanding of what is happening, why it is happening, what is likely to happen next, and where intervention can materially improve the outcome.
Take the limited public diagnostic, explore Independent Assurance, or talk to PHAT directly.