Skip to main content

Engines Scoring Request a Briefing Reliyant.com

ERP Readiness · Intervention · Stabilisation

KAIRO^™
ERP risk. Eliminated.

The structural causes of ERP failure, diagnosed before they become crises

55 to 75% of ERP implementations fail to meet their objectives. The cause is almost never the software. It is the workforce architecture, data quality, and governance the organisation brings to the programme. KAIRO™ diagnoses those conditions before they become crises.

Explore the Engines See the Scoring Model

55 to 75%

ERP Failure Rate

70%

Miss Business Case

6

Diagnostic Engines

3

Lifecycle Phases

Root Cause 70% of ERP failures are structural, not technical

Workforce Unclear roles and span-of-control are top failure drivers

Data Risk Missing critical fields cause migration failure at scale

Governance Slow design decisions extend timelines by 12 to 24 months

Compensation Legacy pay exceptions break ERP configuration logic

Cost Overrun Typical ERP failure exceeds budget by 200%+

Job Architecture Inconsistent grades create workflow and security ambiguity

Go-Live Only 25% of ERP programmes deliver on time and on budget

Root Cause 70% of ERP failures are structural, not technical

Workforce Unclear roles and span-of-control are top failure drivers

Data Risk Missing critical fields cause migration failure at scale

Governance Slow design decisions extend timelines by 12 to 24 months

Compensation Legacy pay exceptions break ERP configuration logic

Cost Overrun Typical ERP failure exceeds budget by 200%+

Job Architecture Inconsistent grades create workflow and security ambiguity

Go-Live Only 25% of ERP programmes deliver on time and on budget

Why ERP Programmes Fail

The problem is never
the software.

Vendors provide mature platforms and structured methodologies. What they cannot fix is the organisational condition the client brings to the programme. That is what KAIRO addresses.

Workforce

Architecture failure

Roles that cannot be codified

When accountability is blurred, reporting lines have drifted, and managerial titles do not reflect real authority, the ERP cannot codify approvals, workflows, or security roles cleanly. What feels manageable in a spreadsheet becomes a structural blocker at configuration stage.

Data

The most common failure vector

Dirty data surfaces at the worst moment

Employee records are incomplete. Position structures are inconsistent. Org units have duplicates. These problems feel minor until migration and payroll simulation expose them at scale. By that point the go-live timeline is already committed and the cost of fixing them has multiplied.

Governance

Decision rights failure

Decisions that never get made

ERP programmes require repeatable governance, not heroic intervention. Where escalation paths are informal, functional owners are unaligned, and design decisions keep reopening, the programme stalls. The implementation partner progresses; the client side does not. The gap becomes the overrun.

Compensation

Pay architecture failure

Legacy pay that cannot be standardised

Custom allowances per employee. Incentive logic disconnected from grade. Policy exceptions treated as the norm. A compensation model full of bespoke components is extremely difficult to encode cleanly. Organisations end up forcing the system to absorb inconsistency rather than using the transformation to simplify it.

Six Diagnostic Engines

Every structural ERP risk,
quantified.

Five core engines assess readiness across the institutional conditions that determine ERP success. A sixth engine activates when a programme is already in difficulty, identifying root causes and defining a stabilisation path. Select any engine to go deeper.

Engine 01

Workforce Architecture Integrity

Tests whether the organisational structure is stable and clear enough to support ERP process ownership, approvals, security roles, and reporting logic.

Role clarity and accountability mapping
Span-of-control benchmarking
Organisational layering efficiency analysis
Duplicate and overlapping role detection
Position vs. job structure alignment

Engine 02

Job Architecture & Levelling

Determines whether titles, grades, role scopes, and job documentation are coherent enough to support ERP design, including approvals, access roles, workflows, and manager self-service.

Job levelling consistency across the organisation
Title standardisation and scope inflation detection
Manager vs. individual contributor distinction
Grade integrity and misalignment ratio
Job description accuracy against real scope

Engine 03

Compensation & Policy Readiness

Assesses whether the pay architecture can be standardised and encoded cleanly, or whether legacy complexity will force the ERP to absorb structural inconsistency.

Pay band overlap and grade compression analysis
Allowance complexity and custom component mapping
Incentive design compatibility with ERP logic
Policy exception density and ownership clarity
Compensation configuration readiness score

What We Test

Structural integrity of your organisation

ERP requires stable, codifiable structure. Where org design has drifted, roles overlap, or accountability is nominal, the system cannot support clean workflow logic or trustworthy reporting.

Are reporting lines stable enough to commit to configuration?
Do managerial titles reflect real decision authority?
Are excessive layers creating approval complexity?
Are parallel roles causing data and workflow duplication?
Are positions consistently mapped to valid org units?

Why It Matters

What the data shows

43%

of ERP programmes cite unclear roles and responsibilities as a primary failure driver

Panorama Consulting, ERP Report

2x

Organisations with more than 7 reporting layers take twice as long to complete ERP design sign-off

Gartner, HR Transformation Benchmarks

Red Flags

Signals that will derail go-live

Critical Risk

"Manager" titles with no real authority or direct reports
Six to eight organisational layers in a 500-person firm
Duplicate roles performing similar functions across units
Positions without valid org structure mapping
Reporting lines that differ across HR, payroll, and org chart

Outputs

What KAIRO delivers

Structural Integrity Score

Structural Integrity Score (0 to 100)
Organisation risk heatmap by layer and unit
Accountability ambiguity index
Workflow complexity flags mapped to ERP design
Corrective sequencing recommendation

What We Test

Role definition and grade integrity

ERP programmes need to know who does what, at what level, with what authority. Where job architecture is weak, approvals, access roles, talent workflows, and workforce analytics all break down before the first workflow is tested.

Are grades applied consistently across divisions?
Do job descriptions reflect actual current scope?
Are manager and specialist roles clearly distinguished?
Is the title structure standardised enough to codify?
Are grading frameworks consistent across business units?

Why It Matters

What the data shows

68%

of organisations report that inconsistent job architecture caused significant rework during ERP security and workflow design

Deloitte, Global HR Technology Survey

3 to 5 mo

Average delay added to ERP programmes when role and grade structures are rationalised mid-implementation rather than before it

Gartner, ERP Implementation Outcomes

Red Flags

Signals that will derail go-live

Critical Risk

"Director" titles with no team and no budget authority
Same role appearing at three different grade levels
Job descriptions copied from templates, not reflecting reality
No distinction between people managers and senior specialists
Different grading frameworks across business units

Outputs

What KAIRO delivers

Job Architecture Maturity Index

Job Architecture Maturity Index (0 to 100)
Levelling misalignment ratio by department
Role inflation map with grade correction recommendations
Critical-role clarity assessment for ERP security design
Standardisation opportunity across entities

What We Test

Pay architecture ERP compatibility

Compensation models full of bespoke allowances, overlapping grades, and policy exceptions are difficult to encode cleanly. The ERP ends up absorbing legacy inconsistency rather than enabling simplification. This is especially acute in the GCC, where allowance complexity routinely accounts for 30 to 50% of total remuneration.

How many unique pay components does each employee have?
Are pay bands meaningfully distinct between grades?
Are bonus and incentive rules compatible with ERP logic?
What percentage of employees are on exception treatment?
Is policy ownership clearly defined across HR and Finance?

Why It Matters

What the data shows

57%

of Workday and Oracle HCM implementations required unplanned compensation redesign work after go-live due to pay structure complexity

Gartner, HCM Implementation Survey

30 to 50%

Of total compensation in GCC organisations is made up of allowances, many individually negotiated with no formal policy basis

Reliyant GCC Compensation Analysis

Red Flags

Signals that will derail go-live

Critical Risk

Custom allowances negotiated individually per employee
Incentive payments not connected to grade or performance framework
Undefined policy ownership across HR and Finance
Adjacent grade bands with 80%+ overlap
Legacy supplements with no policy basis

Outputs

What KAIRO delivers

Compensation Config Readiness

Compensation configuration readiness score
Pay compression exposure analysis
Policy exception density index
Allowance rationalisation opportunity map
Standardisation roadmap before system design

Engine 04 · Most Critical

Data Integrity & Master Data Readiness

The single highest-risk failure vector. Data problems that look manageable in isolation surface at catastrophic scale during migration, testing, and payroll simulation.

Employee record completeness against mandatory ERP fields
Position and org structure master data quality
Duplicate entity and legacy record detection
Workflow-critical field gap analysis
Migration readiness and downstream reporting confidence

Engine 05

Governance & Operating Model

Determines whether the client has the governance maturity to make timely, traceable, well-owned decisions through design, build, test, and stabilisation phases.

Decision rights clarity and ownership mapping
Steering committee and design authority effectiveness
Escalation path discipline and speed
Functional alignment across HR, Finance, and IT
Implementation partner challenge capability

Engine 06 · Differentiator

Intervention & Recovery Engine

Activated when an ERP programme is already in difficulty. Isolates organisational root causes from technical symptoms and defines a disciplined recovery roadmap.

Root cause isolation: organisational vs. technical
Go-live gating decision support
Design freeze and exception reduction strategy
Governance reset and accountability reassignment
Partner challenge and implementation reset pathway

What We Test

Can the ERP actually function on your data?

This is the most common cause of late-stage programme failure. Problems that appeared minor in HR files become system-blocking defects during migration and testing. At that point they are expensive and time-critical to fix, with the go-live date already publicly committed.

What percentage of records are missing mandatory fields?
Are positions correctly mapped to org structure?
How many duplicate records or legacy org units exist?
Are role-skill mappings complete enough to support workflows?
Are multiple systems of record reconciled and consistent?

Why It Matters

What the data shows

75%

of ERP implementations experience significant data migration issues that cause testing delays, payroll failures, or go-live postponement

Panorama Consulting, ERP Lessons Learned Report

3 in 10

ERP go-lives are delayed specifically because data quality issues were not identified until the migration or parallel-run phase

ECI Software Solutions, ERP Failure Analysis

Red Flags

Signals that will derail go-live

Critical · Highest Risk

Missing reporting lines in 20%+ of employee records
Inconsistent job codes across payroll and HR systems
Dirty historical data from legacy migrations never cleaned
Position structure diverging from actual org chart
Multiple systems of record with unreconciled differences

Outputs

What KAIRO delivers

Data Readiness Score

Master data readiness score (0 to 100)
Migration risk index by data domain
Field criticality gap analysis (mandatory vs. present)
Downstream reporting confidence rating
Data remediation prioritisation plan

What We Test

Ability to make and hold decisions

ERP programmes do not fail because of bad intentions. They fail because governance is too slow, too informal, and too dependent on a small number of people. When those people are unavailable, decisions stall and timelines slip in ways that compound quickly.

Who owns design decisions and what is their authority?
How long does it take to resolve a contested requirement?
How many unresolved governance issues exist right now?
Is there a functioning design authority or steering committee?
Can the client effectively challenge the implementation partner?

Why It Matters

What the data shows

37%

of ERP project overruns are directly attributable to slow or absent governance: delayed decisions, reopened requirements, and unresolved design authority conflicts

Gartner, ERP Programme Governance Study

6 wks

Average time lost per major design decision that escalates without a clear owner, across a typical mid-size ERP programme

McKinsey, Digital Transformation Benchmarks

Red Flags

Signals that will derail go-live

Critical Risk

Design decisions escalated too late or not at all
No design authority; everyone defers to one executive
Conflicting stakeholder views on scope and requirements
Requirements that keep reopening after sign-off
Client unable to challenge vendor delivery quality

Outputs

What KAIRO delivers

Governance Maturity Score

Governance maturity score (0 to 100)
Decision bottleneck map by function
Unresolved design authority exposure log
Escalation discipline diagnostics
Governance reset recommendations

When This Activates

Active failure indicators in a live programme

This engine is not scored. It activates when a programme already in flight shows signs of structural breakdown. The earlier it is triggered, the lower the cost of recovery. Most organisations wait too long.

Repeated design reversals on committed requirements
Testing failures attributed to business logic issues
20%+ of decisions being reopened after approval
Data migration failure rate exceeding 15%
Post-go-live adoption below threshold; workarounds prevalent

Why It Matters

What the data shows

25%

of ERP implementations fail catastrophically, whether abandoned, requiring a complete restart, or triggering legal action against the implementation partner

Gartner, Enterprise Application Failure Rates

200%+

Typical cost overrun in a failed ERP programme where organisational root causes were not identified and corrected during implementation

Rand Group, ERP Failure Cost Analysis

What We Distinguish

Symptoms vs. root causes

Active Intervention

Most firms diagnose symptoms. KAIRO identifies the institutional root cause: whether it is workforce structure, data quality, governance collapse, or compensation complexity, separating those root causes from technical delivery defects.

Symptoms: what the programme is presenting
Root causes: what is actually driving it
Delivery consequences: cost of leaving it unresolved
Recovery priorities: what to fix first, and in what order

Outputs

What KAIRO delivers

Stabilisation Roadmap

Root cause isolation report
Go-live gating recommendation with rationale
Stabilisation roadmap: immediate, near-term, structural
Governance and accountability reset plan
Implementation partner challenge and reset strategy

The KAIRO Scoring Model

A number your Board
can act on.

KAIRO translates complex institutional diagnostic evidence into a single weighted readiness score with a clear executive decision output: proceed, fix, pause, or intervene.

Scored Dimensions

Data Integrity

Record completeness, master data quality, migration readiness

Workforce Architecture

Role clarity, span of control, layering, accountability

Job Architecture

Grade integrity, title consistency, role scope alignment

Governance & Operating Model

Decision rights, escalation discipline, ownership clarity

Compensation & Policy

Pay structure viability, exception density, ERP compatibility

Example KAIRO Score

58

High Risk · Partial redesign required before go-live

Output Bands & Executive Decision

Score	Interpretation	Executive Decision
85 to 100	Ready	✅ Proceed
70 to 84	Conditional	⚠ Fix targeted gaps
50 to 69	High Risk	🔶 Pause and correct
<50	Critical	❌ Do not proceed

Example Scorecard

Dimension	Score	Risk Level
Workforce Architecture	62	High
Job Architecture	55	High
Compensation	70	Moderate
Data Integrity	48	Critical
Governance	65	High

The KAIRO Lifecycle

Before, during, or after:
KAIRO applies.

Most ERP assurance tools only operate before go-live. KAIRO is designed for all three phases of the transformation lifecycle, including active recovery when a programme is already in trouble.

Phase 01

Before ERP · Readiness

Pre-Implementation Diagnostic

An honest institutional view of whether the organisation is genuinely ready before committing further time, budget, and executive credibility.

Go / No-Go validation before investment locks
Risk identification across all five dimensions
Design correction before vendor scope is set
Board-level readiness scorecard
Corrective sprint planning before mobilisation

Phase 02

During ERP · Intervention

Live Implementation Correction

When warning signs emerge: design churn, testing failures, delayed sign-offs, or deteriorating client-vendor trust. KAIRO provides structured intervention.

Root cause isolation vs. symptom management
Design freeze and exception reduction strategy
Governance reset and decision authority clarification
Implementation partner challenge and reset
Stabilisation roadmap with clear sequencing

Phase 03

After ERP · Stabilisation

Post-Go-Live Recovery

For organisations that technically went live but remain institutionally unstable, with workarounds proliferating, manual processes returning, adoption shallow.

Adoption failure root cause analysis
Data remediation and master data reset
Workflow and role hierarchy resolution
Manager accountability and self-service enablement
Value realisation pathway to full ERP utilisation

Use Cases

What KAIRO looks like
in practice.

01

Pre-Go-Live Readiness Review

A government-linked organisation is six months from planned go-live. KAIRO identifies that manager accountability is inconsistently defined, the position structure is unstable, and policy exceptions are too numerous for clean workflow standardisation.

Recommendation: Proceed with conditions only. A targeted architecture and policy rationalisation sprint required before configuration locks.

02

Mid-Implementation Intervention

A diversified enterprise is in build and testing, but design decisions keep reopening. HR says the system does not reflect reality; the implementation partner says requirements were not frozen; leadership is losing confidence.

Root cause: governance ambiguity and role architecture inconsistency. Recommendation: short stabilisation sprint, design authority reset, targeted data and role clarification.

03

Post-Go-Live Stabilisation

An organisation has technically gone live, but managers are bypassing the system and HR is running on spreadsheets. Reporting is unreliable and the ERP is not trusted as a source of truth across any function.

Recommendation: Stabilisation roadmap focused on data remediation, workflow simplification, and manager accountability reset. Not another implementation cycle.

Why KAIRO. Why Now.

55 to 75%

of ERP programmes fail to meet their stated objectives

200%+

Typical budget overrun in a catastrophic ERP failure

AED 20M+

Threshold at which KAIRO becomes financially essential

0

Dedicated workforce-centric ERP readiness instruments before KAIRO

Competitive Positioning

The market has implementation firms.
Not readiness instruments.

Large firms are strong at deploying systems. What they cannot do, and are often commercially conflicted to do, is tell a client to pause and correct before the programme fails.

Capability	Big 4 Firms	ERP Vendors	Boutiques	Reliyant KAIRO™ ✓
Workforce-centric diagnostic	✗	✗	Partial	✓ Full engine
Pre-implementation readiness	Generic	Methodology only	Fragmented	✓ Structured model
Mid-implementation intervention	Reactive	✗	✗	✓ Active engine
Post-go-live stabilisation	Post-mortem	✗	✗	✓ Recovery roadmap
Quantified risk scoring	✗	✗	✗	✓ 0 to 100 per dimension
Go / No-Go executive output	✗	✗	✗	✓ Clear decision stance
Independent of implementation vendor	✗	✗	Sometimes	✓ Fully independent

Request an Assessment

Your ERP risk is
already accumulating.

The structural issues that cause ERP failure do not announce themselves during planning. They surface during testing, migration, and go-live, when fixing them is most expensive and least recoverable. KAIRO tells you where they are before that moment arrives.

Request a Briefing

KAIRO™ is a Reliyant proprietary instrument. Engagements are structured as standalone diagnostic, diagnostic + corrective design, or full lifecycle advisory. Outputs are executive-grade and Board-ready. Proprietary and Confidential.