RFK / Enterprise SystemsBack to portfolio
Interactive operating-model case study

Protect the platform.
Improve the work.

A practical support model for an organization moving from ERP implementation into stable operations: structured intake, defensible triage, clear decision rights, reusable knowledge, and measurable value.

Sanitized demonstration using fictional scenarios and adjustable assumptions
Operational evidenceUsers describe the work, impact, and exceptions.
Structured translationThe support team turns evidence into actionable requirements.
Accountable decisionsOwners make tradeoffs with cost, risk, and user impact visible.

Route the work before it becomes noise.

Select a sample request. The model separates service restoration, business-process guidance, configuration, and strategic platform decisions so the administrator is not the default owner of everything.

Tier 1 / Knowledge

Owner: ERP Support Analyst

Confirm access, reproduce the issue, use the approved job aid, and capture evidence before escalation.

Authority that matches the decision.

Governance works when it routes decisions to the people closest to the evidence, while reserving policy, risk, and investment tradeoffs for accountable leaders.

Support analyst decides

Service handling

  • Ticket completeness and priority
  • Known-error and job-aid resolution
  • Escalation evidence and follow-up
  • Knowledge and trend updates
Administrator decides

Platform execution

  • Configuration approach
  • Security and integration diagnosis
  • Release and regression needs
  • Vendor technical escalation
Business owner decides

Process tradeoffs

  • Policy and control intent
  • Accepted business exceptions
  • Cross-functional priority
  • Risk and funding choices

Launch the support function in 90 days.

The first quarter builds control without waiting for perfect documentation or a large reorganization.

30

Stabilize

  • Inventory queues and ownership
  • Define severity and evidence rules
  • Publish escalation paths
  • Baseline volume, age, and rework
60

Standardize

  • Build top-request job aids
  • Launch weekly trend review
  • Clarify release readiness
  • Track vendor actions to closure
90

Improve

  • Remove repeat demand
  • Automate useful routing
  • Prioritize root causes
  • Report recovered capacity and value

Make the staffing case inspectable.

This is a planning model, not a promise. Adjust the assumptions to see when dedicated support costs less than recurring rework, delayed decisions, premium consulting, and lost administrator capacity.

Annual value protected$137,400
Net annual benefit$26,900
Payback9.7 mo
Three-year net$80,700

Model: user time recovered + administrator capacity recovered + avoidable external remediation - loaded role cost. Values are fictional and intentionally conservative.

Measure a healthier service.

The goal is not to make the dashboard green. It is to improve resolution quality, reduce repeat demand, and return scarce specialist time to high-value platform work.

< 1 dayMedian first meaningful response
90%+Tickets with actionable evidence
DownRepeat demand for top issue types
UpAdministrator time on optimization
Lesson carried forward
Frontline staff contribute operational evidence; the project team translates it; leadership makes the tradeoffs.

My earlier instinct was to solve coordination through more governance. The better model is lighter: protect frontline time with short, structured evidence sessions; let delivery teams do the translation work; and use leadership attention only where a genuine policy, risk, or resource decision exists.