The capability-first approach
Most organizations are locked into oversized enterprise suites (Salesforce, MRI, Oracle, SAP) because they treat the system as the capability. We decompose the suite into individual capabilities, then replace only what you need with governed, finance-safe execution.
Capability-first means:
- We start with a specific workflow capability, not a vendor platform
- We run pilots in parallel with reconciliation gates
- We cut over only when evidence is clear
- We preserve continuity at every step
Core capabilities we deliver
Capability decomposition
Identify which suite capabilities you truly depend on, and which exist only because the suite exists. Map dependencies across systems, workflows, and approvals so you know exactly what's at risk before you act.
Replacement execution
Design and run controlled pilots that operate in parallel with existing systems. Build reconciliation routines, define cutover criteria, and create rollback triggers before any production change.
Governance design
Create executive control structures that preserve optionality as you modernize. Establish evidence requirements, risk gates, and decision frameworks so leadership stays in control.
Financial protection
Protect finance, compliance, and audit requirements through every step. Define continuity baselines, build reconciliation checks, and require proof before any recommendation goes forward.
Why this matters now
The Salesforce problem: Organizations pay enterprise costs for CRM suites but rely on narrow capabilities. Custom objects turn into workarounds. Licensing costs scale faster than value. The suite becomes the capability map, not the business.
The MRI problem: Property management suites bundle everything from leasing to accounting. You can't separate vendor lock-in from mission-critical workflows. Upgrades break customizations. The exit cost feels higher than the pain of staying.
The capability-first alternative: Decompose the suite into ringfenced capabilities. Replace one workflow at a time with controlled pilots. Reduce dependency quarter by quarter without a multi-year transformation program.
What you get
For executives
- Control: Approve each cutover decision based on evidence, not momentum
- Optionality: Preserve the ability to stop, extend, or redirect at any phase
- Clarity: Understand exactly what's at risk and what savings are real
For operators
- Continuity: Finance, compliance, and reporting stay protected through every change
- Accountability: Named owners for each capability with clear escalation paths
- Proof: Reconciliation routines that show the pilot works before cutover
For finance leaders
- Risk reduction: Controlled exposure with rollback triggers at every step
- Cost transparency: See dependency costs broken out by capability, not bundled by vendor
- Evidence requirements: No cutover recommendations without reconciliation proof
Related resources
- Engagement structure — Three-phase method from discovery through controlled cutover
- How we work — Capability-first execution with risk gates and evidence requirements
- Example engagements — Anonymized case studies showing dependency reduction outcomes
- Docs — Detailed guidance on method, deliverables, and decision controls
Best fit
This approach is a strong fit when:
- You are paying enterprise suite costs but rely on a narrow set of capabilities
- You need savings and control improvements without destabilizing reporting
- You operate under audit, compliance, or board-level scrutiny
- You want optionality and proof, not a multi-year leap of faith
Not a fit
This approach is likely not a fit when:
- You are already committed to a full rip-and-replace transformation
- You want a vendor selection exercise more than a dependency reduction program
- You need staff augmentation rather than accountable, senior execution