When automation programmes drift beyond recoverable limits under standard management — a different authority is required. Mandates typically involve capital exposure exceeding €5M.
When Programmes Drift
Warning signals that require intervention
Go-live stability lost
Integration gaps have emerged that no single vendor will own. FAT/SAT results are unstable and the go-live date is no longer credible.
Vendor accountability collapsed
Blame loops between suppliers have replaced problem-solving. Meetings produce no resolution. Escalation paths are exhausted.
Board confidence lost
Status reports are no longer trusted at executive level. The programme has reached board agenda — and the organisation lacks a credible response.
Scope has become uncontrollable
Requirements have expanded post-contract without formal change control. Budget overruns cannot be traced to a root cause or defended under scrutiny.
Milestones have decoupled from reality
Reported progress no longer reflects actual delivery status. The gap between plan and reality is widening with each reporting cycle.
Cross-border coordination failing
Multi-site or multi-country programmes have fragmented. Language barriers, time zone gaps, and misaligned priorities compound delivery risk.
Intervention Model
Diagnose. Stabilise. Secure Go-Live.
PHASE 01
Diagnose
Rapid assessment of integration status, governance gaps, vendor accountability, and go-live risk exposure. Output: risk register, gap analysis, and prioritised action map — within the first week of engagement.
PHASE 02
Stabilise
Governance reset. Accountability established. Critical interface blockers resolved. Structured reporting reinstated at operational and executive levels. Vendor blame loops broken.
PHASE 03
Secure Go-Live
Structured delivery through validated FAT/SAT and controlled hypercare transition. Programme closed — with full documentation and governance audit trail. Not handed off in distress.
Scenarios & Approach
What CONEXUS addresses — and how
Typical Scenarios
When to engage
Go-live at risk due to WCS/WMS integration gaps
Vendor coordination breakdown across multiple suppliers
Scope drift without traceability or change control
Board-level escalation — status reports no longer trusted
FAT/SAT instability under compressed timelines
Budget overruns without accountable root cause
Intervention Approach
How we act
Immediate integration risk assessment and gap analysis
Milestone and interface revalidation vs contractual baseline
Governance reset — roles, escalation paths, decision rights
Structured reporting: operational to executive level
Clear accountability matrix across all vendor layers
Vendor blame loop elimination via neutral authority
Outcome
What you get
Stabilised delivery with documented recovery plan
Restored governance clarity at all levels
Protected operational continuity and go-live path
Defensible programme status for board reporting
Risk mitigation strategy with named accountability
Structured handover or ongoing programme leadership
Executive Reporting Structure
Governance that holds at board level
Operational Layer
Daily integration status and blocker tracking
Vendor action logs with named owners and deadlines
Interface test results and FAT/SAT status
Risk register — updated continuously
Executive Layer
Weekly programme health report — board-ready format
RAG status across all critical workstreams
Decision log — what was decided, by whom, when
Recovery trajectory vs revised baseline
CONEXUS is not called to run projects. We are called when projects are failing — and when the cost of failure has become unacceptable. That is a different mandate. It requires different authority, different methodology, and different accountability.
Programme already under pressure?
Respond within 48 hours. No commitment required at this stage.