Case study
Client-side support for a CRM and ERP implementation across six legal entities
Starting point
A German hospitality group is introducing a central CRM, sales, communication and accounting structure for six operating entities.
Established ways of working, differing system maturity and regional particularities meet the ambition of working from one shared data base in future.
Complexity
Several sites, languages, departments and established ways of working have to be brought together in one system landscape while the operation continues.
- six operating entities
- live operation with no project pause
- multilingual user groups
- varying data quality across areas
- an external implementation partner
- parallel business and system topics
CORBU’s role
CORBU works on the client side between management, operational departments, internal IT, users and the external implementation partner – as a review, sparring and translation function.
Topics covered
- capturing and reviewing existing processes and workflows
- translating operational requirements into technical requirements
- clarifying responsibilities between entities and central functions
- preparing critical decisions for management
- data migration: scope, quality, ownership, sequence
- test and acceptance logic along real operational routines
- structuring user feedback after go-live
- distinguishing between defects, rework and new requirements
Clear limits
CORBU takes on neither the technical delivery nor the project management of the implementation partner, and sells no software.
Confidential company information, system details and contract content remain outside this description. Performance figures are deliberately not published.
A go-live is not successful because the system has been switched on. It is successful because the operation can work with it reliably.
Current status
The project is ongoing. Support is provided in regular review cycles along the upcoming decisions, the data topics and user adoption.
Transferable insights
- Shared systems rarely fail because of technology; they fail because each entity defines its processes differently.
- If data ownership is not named early, it inevitably lands in go-live week.
- Users accept change more readily when they understand the purpose, not just the sequence of clicks.
- A cleanly separated change log protects against silent scope creep and unclear costs.