Modernise finance, operations and the supply chain on connected ERP, with a legal entity, localisation and statutory reporting per market where the group needs it.
We map the systems and processes you have now, agree the scope worth doing first, and put a phased plan against it.
We configure and build what is in scope, then wire it to the systems either side of it.
Data is migrated and reconciled against source totals, then tested and signed off before anyone relies on it.
We run the cutover, stabilise it, document what was built and hand it to your team.
Order of magnitude, not a quote. We will not price your programme before we have read your configuration, but you should be able to tell from these whether we are in your range before you spend a meeting finding out.
2 to 3 weeks
$8k to $15k
We go through the estate and the processes around it, and come back with the gaps, the options and what each one costs to close. You own the output whether or not we do the work.
8 to 16 weeks, phased
$40k to $200k, by platform
A defined piece of work with a fixed scope, a named team and a go-live date: a module, a migration, an integration set or a reporting layer. Where the work sits inside one country and one operating model, this is usually the right shape and the cheapest way to prove the platform.
9 to 18 months, phased in country waves
From $350k
A multi-entity or multi-country rollout run with programme governance: a global template designed once, then deployed in country waves with the localisation, statutory reporting and tax obligations sequenced ahead of each go-live. It comes with a programme lead, a template change process and a deployment lead per wave, because a rollout of this shape fails on governance long before it fails on configuration.
Rolling, minimum 3 months
$14k to $28k per month
Ongoing senior capacity that sits inside your programme under your delivery lead, extending and maintaining the estate alongside your own team.
Yes, and for a first engagement we usually recommend it. The modules are independent enough to phase, so we scope the one carrying the most pain, prove it, then extend once your team has absorbed the change.
It depends on transaction volume, entity count and how much process complexity you genuinely need rather than have inherited. That call is part of the fit-gap, and we will tell you if the cheaper option is the right one.
We keep what you need live and archive the rest somewhere queryable. Carrying ten years of history into a new ledger is usually a cost with no reader, so we decide that deliberately rather than by default.
Yes, and it is a different shape of engagement rather than a bigger version of a single-entity project. It runs as a programme: a global template built once in a reference entity, then country waves, each carrying its own localisation, statutory reporting, indirect tax and e-invoicing work. There is a walkthrough of how that runs month by month on this site, including where it gets difficult.
With a rule agreed before the first country, not by argument during the third. A variation with a statutory basis is not negotiable and goes into the template as a country variant. A variation without one goes on the register with a cost, and a named sponsor decides. Groups that skip that rule end up with a separate build per market and a consolidation that still runs on a spreadsheet, which is the outcome the programme was meant to remove.
They are treated as dated obligations from month one, not as a reporting task at the end. Regimes differ: some require an invoice to be cleared by the tax authority before it can be issued, others require structured reporting after the fact, and several markets are moving between the two. The rules and the dates change often enough that we confirm the current position per market during scoping rather than working from a matrix, and we build and test the connection against the authority's test facility where one is published.
We configure tax determination, tax codes and the returns or digital reporting files the system produces, then prove them against a real filing period with your finance team. The tax position itself, the transfer pricing policy and the filings stay with your tax advisers and local accountants. We implement what they decide. Any supplier who offers you both should be asked which one they are actually accountable for.
Typically 9 to 18 months, and the range is honest rather than cautious. What moves it is the number of countries, how much local variation survives design, and whether local finance teams are available to test their own market. The first country is deliberately slow because it finds everything the template got wrong. If waves three and four are not materially faster than the first, the template is not working and that should be said out loud rather than absorbed into the plan.
Related
Bring the process that is breaking and we will tell you what it takes to fix it, including when the answer is not a project.
