Every migration partner's plan assumes your master data is clean and your processes are documented. Almost nobody's are — and that gap becomes the change orders, the slipped go-live, and the six months running two systems. We close it before it costs you: master data evaluated against the target system and cleansed, a field-level map that migrates cleanly, future-state workflows defined, SOPs rewritten, and users trained on what actually changes. Done in weeks, through the Transformation module, independent of any ERP vendor.
We've been on both sides of this. We've led master data on an S/4HANA program at a $200M manufacturer, fed a division's Fourth Shift data into a parent company's Oracle on a hard deadline, and guided a foundry through its first ERP thirty years ago. The pattern never changes: the target system works. What breaks is thirty years of item masters that were never cleaned, BOMs with phantom levels the new system doesn't support, customer records with four versions of the same name, and processes that live in one planner's spreadsheet instead of an SOP.
The implementation partner will find all of this. After contract signature, on their rates, in the form of change orders and a go-live that moves right. And the training will teach your people the new screens, not how their workflow changes — because nobody defined the future-state workflow before the software was configured.
Readiness work done first inverts that. The partner receives clean, mapped, documented data and a defined future state. Your people walk into go-live knowing what changes and why. And you have an honest, independent read on the target system's fit — from people who don't get paid when you buy it.
Data from the ERP, spreadsheets, Access; SOPs in any state; the target's requirements.
Readiness score by entity. Tailored questionnaires and targeted interviews close the gaps.
Duplicates merged, attributes filled, field-level map reconciled with test loads.
Process definitions, SOPs rewritten, role-based training, measurement contracts.
Clean, mapped, documented data and a defined future state. Fewer change orders.
What the new system will actually do with your data and processes — which modules, which fields are required, which of your workarounds it kills and which it can't replace. Honest, because we don't sell it.
Every table, customization, side spreadsheet and Access database that carries real business data. How the process actually runs today, in the people's own words, graded by evidence.
Items, BOMs, routings, customers, suppliers, GL structure — duplicates merged, orphans resolved, missing target-required attributes collected and filled, every record scored against what the target requires.
Field-level mapping from source to target: transformation rules, defaults, exceptions, and the reconciliation that proves the load ties — so the partner's load tools get data that just works.
Not the new screens — the new way the work flows. Role by role: what you stop doing, what you start doing, and why. Training built from the future-state definition, delivered before go-live.
Existing work instructions and SOPs loaded and reviewed against the future state. The ones that survive are updated; the ones that only existed to work around the old system are retired; the missing ones are written.
Traditional readiness is a room full of people and a consultant with sticky notes, for months. The Transformation module we built into Clairvient replaces most of that with instruments.
It consumes what you already have. Your current data — from the ERP, from spreadsheets, from Access, from wherever it actually lives — and every work instruction and SOP you can find, in whatever state they're in. It profiles the data against the target system's requirements and reads the documents against how the data says the process really runs.
It asks the right people the right questions. Tailored questionnaires go to the people who own each process — purchasing gets asked about the 61% of items missing a commodity code, not about everything. Then we run targeted process interviews to close the remaining gaps, recorded and transcribed into the workspace.
It produces the future state with the evidence attached. Current-state findings graded observed / derived / documented. Future-state process definitions against the target system. Cleansed, enriched master data with lineage. The field-level map. Updated SOPs. Role-based training material. And clear targets — measurement contracts — for how each process should perform once you've transitioned, so the migration can be judged by numbers afterward instead of by feelings.
Data from everywhere, documents in any state, target-system requirements loaded. First readiness score by entity: what's clean, what's fixable, what's blocked.
Tailored questionnaires close the data gaps; targeted process interviews close the workflow gaps. Findings graded by evidence as they land.
Master data merged, resolved and enriched with your people approving the decisions. Field-level mapping to the target, reconciled with test loads.
Process definitions against the target. SOPs rewritten or retired. Role-based training on what changes. Measurement contracts for after go-live. Handed to your partner and your people.
Every entity scored, merged, resolved and enriched against target requirements — with lineage back to the source record.
Source → target with rules, defaults and exceptions, proven with reconciled test loads. The partner's load is a lookup, not a discovery.
How it runs now with the evidence, how it should run on the target, and the delta by role.
Reviewed against the future state. Updated, retired or written new. Yours, in a form your people will actually use.
Built from the future state, delivered before go-live, so the first day on the new system isn't the first time anyone hears their workflow changed.
Measurement contracts per process — the close in four days, the planner override rate under 10% — so the migration is judged by numbers, not by mood.
The readiness data model doesn't get thrown away at go-live. Clairvient runs the source and target ERPs side by side with full reporting continuity — the dashboards read the canonical model, not either ERP — so management sees the same numbers the week before cutover, the week of, and the week after. The history from the old system survives the change, and the same scoreboard that graded readiness now measures whether the migration delivered.
And if the readiness work shows that a modern layer over the system you already have gets you what the migration promised — at a fraction of the cost and none of the disruption — you'll hear that too. We don't get paid when you buy the new ERP.
Those three answers — plus an honest word about the state of your item master — are enough for a straight read on what readiness would involve and what it would cost. If you haven't picked the target yet, that's fine; say so.
You'll get a straight answer and a tight scope. If we can't help, we'll tell you that too — and usually who can.
