Konstantin “Stan”
PonomarevTRANSFORMATION & PROGRAM LEADERSHIP
Menu

Delivery coordination

CASE 07 / ERP DELIVERY 2 MIN READ

A cutover is a chain
of explicit commitments.

As the ERP engagement approached cutover, operational preparation, system loading and remaining support needed one coherent plan. I ran a focused PMO touchpoint to expose mismatches before they became last-minute surprises.

Jump to the results ↓
4open items in the readiness review
CONTEXT
U.S. healthcare client · ERP engagement
MY ROLE
Program oversight and PMO coordination
PERIOD
2026
4open readiness items
8follow-up actions
May 4planned go-live date

AT A GLANCE

Delivery coordination

The mandate

Align the final operating and system cutover sequence.

My contribution

Run the PMO review and reconcile plan, ownership and effort.

The result

An explicit action plan with external dependencies separated.

01 / THE CHALLENGE

The problem to solve.

The working plan and the resource estimate did not fully agree. Operational counts, system loading, EDI decisions and the non-stock workflow also sat on different paths to readiness.

THE DELIVERY LOGIC ILLUSTRATIVE MODEL

01Operational readinessPreparation and inventory counts
02System readinessLoad sequence and workflow issues
03Delivery commitmentOwners, hours and external dependencies

02 / KEY DECISIONS

Where I focused.

The central trade-off

Keeping the date in the plan was not enough. The operational sequence, support hours and external vendor decisions needed separate owners and an honest view of what remained open.

  1. 01

    Reconcile the sequence.

    Connected operational preparation, inventory counts, system loading and the planned May 4 go-live. Each step needed a clear handoff and an accountable owner.

  2. 02

    Expose the effort gap.

    Raised the difference between 80–90 hours of expected support and the 60 hours in the plan. The next action was to reconcile allocation and budget rather than absorb the gap silently.

  3. 03

    Keep unresolved dependencies visible.

    Separated EDI vendor selection from the immediate cutover path and retained the non-stock workflow as an open issue. The review produced eight follow-up actions.

03 / THE OUTCOME

What changed.

  • The PMO review consolidated four open items into an actionable readiness discussion.
  • A 20–30-hour planning gap was made explicit for allocation and budget reconciliation.
  • External vendor decisions and unresolved workflow work remained visible with follow-up ownership.

04 / MY ACCOUNTABILITY

A clear line of ownership.

My role was program oversight, plan reconciliation and coordination. The case records the readiness review and its actions; it does not claim that every issue was resolved in that meeting or that the planned go-live occurred on time.

WORKING PRINCIPLE

A credible cutover plan makes the unresolved work as visible as the completed work.

Facing a similar mandate?

Let’s discuss the decisions, lessons and experience behind this work.

Discuss this experience

LET’S CONNECT

The next mandate.
Let’s discuss it.

An opportunity, a shared challenge or an exchange of ideas — start a conversation.

Let’s connect

AREAS OF PRACTICE

Transformation management.
Portfolio & program leadership.
AI-enabled business change.

Tampa, Florida
U.S. work authorization
No sponsorship required

Executive profile PDF · 1 pageView LinkedIn (opens in a new tab)