A featured contribution from Leadership Perspectives: a curated forum reserved for leaders nominated by our subscribers and vetted by the Construction Tech Review Advisory Board.
Triconnex
One ERP, Many Factories: Turning Global Standardisation into Business Value
Dean Woodcock
Using one ERP platform across several countries does not automatically create an integrated business. The value comes from establishing common processes, reliable information and clear accountability while recognising the operational realities of each manufacturing site.
Leading IT across manufacturing operations in the UK, Romania, India and Mexico has taught me that the most difficult ERP decisions rarely concern the software itself. They concern how the business defines demand, who owns its data, when inventory becomes available and which local practices should survive within a global model.
These questions can remain hidden while sites operate independently. A global ERP programme brings them into the open and requires deliberate choices about how the organisation intends to operate.
Simply deploying the same platform everywhere does not create consistency. Two factories can use the same transaction while applying different assumptions, controls or definitions behind it. The system may be common, but the business is not yet working from a common understanding.
Standardisation Needs a Business Case
Standardisation is often presented as an objective in its own right. I see it as a means of creating value.
A common process should make performance easier to compare, improve the quality of consolidated information or reduce the cost and risk of supporting multiple ways of working. It may also allow knowledge, improvements and resources to move more readily between sites.
The value can be seen in better planning, greater confidence in inventory, stronger financial control and fewer manual reconciliations. Over time, a consistent operating model also makes it easier to scale, integrate new operations and respond to changing customer requirements without adding another layer of complexity.
This does not mean forcing every factory to operate identically. Manufacturing sites face different customer schedules, supply chains, tax requirements and regulatory obligations. Some variation is necessary. The important distinction is between a legitimate local requirement and a practice retained simply because it is familiar.
A global design therefore needs clear boundaries. The core should be consistent wherever consistency creates enterprise value. Local exceptions should be understood, justified and governed.
ERP Sits at the Centre of the Factory
In manufacturing, ERP does not operate as a standalone business application. It connects customer demand, engineering data, materials, production, logistics and finance. It must also exchange information with manufacturing execution systems, electronic data interchange networks, warehouse processes and external partners.
A decision in one area can have consequences elsewhere. A change to how production is completed may affect inventory, costing, available-to-promise information and financial reporting. A local workaround may solve an immediate operational problem while weakening group-level visibility.
This is why global ERP leadership requires a broader view than system implementation. The task is to understand these dependencies and determine how information should move through the enterprise from customer demand to operational execution and financial result.
-
Standardisation is often presented as an objective in its own right. I see it as a means of creating value.
Before committing ERP resource, I want four points to be clear: which business outcome should change, who owns that outcome, what must change operationally and how we will know whether the investment has worked. If those questions cannot be answered, further configuration is unlikely to solve the underlying problem.
Decision Rights Matter as Much as System Design
A global ERP programme inevitably brings competing priorities to the surface. Finance may seek tighter control, operations may prioritise flexibility, and individual sites may want to preserve processes that reflect local experience.
These tensions are normal. What causes programmes to stall is uncertainty about who can resolve them.
The operating model must define who owns each business process, who is responsible for critical data and who can approve an exception to the global design. It also needs a route for decisions that cross functions or affect more than one country.
IT has an important role in maintaining the integrity of the overall design, making dependencies visible and ensuring that short-term choices do not create long-term complexity. However, IT cannot own every operational outcome. Process ownership and benefit realisation must remain with the relevant business leaders.
Go-Live Is the Start of Value Realisation
ERP programmes naturally build towards go-live, but a functioning system is not the same as an improved business.
Value develops after implementation as data becomes more reliable, users gain confidence and workarounds are removed. It appears when planners can trust the information in front of them, managers can compare performance on a consistent basis and operational problems can be addressed without first reconciling several versions of the truth.
The measures should be agreed before implementation and tracked afterwards. Depending on the organisation, these might include inventory accuracy, schedule adherence, order fulfilment, manual intervention, reporting lead times or working-capital performance.
Leadership attention must continue beyond technical stabilisation. Otherwise, the organisation risks completing the implementation while leaving much of the value unrealised.
Global ERP transformation is ultimately an enterprise design decision. Its success is not demonstrated by having one system across many factories. It is demonstrated when those factories can operate with clearer accountability, more consistent information and greater confidence in the decisions they make.
