One renewal date.
Three very different paths.
Vanbrook has to decide whether to keep three overlapping systems, replace one of them, or consolidate onto a single platform. The clock is the only fixed thing in the decision.
Extension not yet requested. Procurement owns the clock.
Decision required
- Whether to renew, replace, or consolidate the systems supporting quoting, service contracts, and parts distribution.
Approval path
- CFO approves capital above $250,000
- IT Director approves architecture
- COO sponsors
- Procurement owns sourcing and negotiation
Stated constraints
- No headcount reduction is on the table
- Peak maintenance season runs September–November and is not available for cutover
- Two facilities are on separate ERP instances
What the recommendation must address
- Cost over three years
- Capability fit against the aftermarket sales motion
- Adoption risk given prior rollout history
- Whether consolidation is achievable before the next renewal cycle
Which path creates the strongest three-year case once cost, capability fit, adoption risk, transition effort, scalability, and strategic relevance are considered together?
Start with what is known.
The visible licenses are only part of the current cost. Reconciliation, duplicate maintenance, and audit work add another $248,000 each year. Every line below states where the number came from.
| Line | Basis | Amount |
|---|
Some costs are real before they are measurable.
Now ask what has to be true.
Spend is knowable, so it is stated firmly. Value is conditional, so it is stated as a range with the condition that governs it. Turn a condition off and the case updates everywhere downstream.
- Priced into the three-year cost model
- $482,000reconciliation and integration conditions holding
- Conditional value, not netted into cost
- $36,000–$84,000audit preparation reduction, stated as a range
- Stated, not dollar-priced
- 2drivers with no defensible base to price against
Compare the paths, not just the prices.
The preferred path changes with what leadership values most. Start with the emphasis presets; open the full weighting model to inspect the mechanics.
How sensitive is the recommendation?
Shift weight from three-year cost to adoption confidence. This is the trade the committee is actually arguing about, so it is the one the readout tracks.
Transition Feasibility behaves identically, because Renew and Consolidate hold the same score spread on both criteria. The two are correlated and should not be weighted as though they were independent.
Uncertainty is useful when it has an owner.
Every open item is tied to the person or function responsible for validating it. The vendor-supplied migration estimate stays in the model and stays in the total — flagged, never presented as verified.
A recommendation should show what would reverse it.
A preferred path, the conditions on approval, the tradeoffs accepted, the point where another option becomes more defensible — and where this work stops and specialists take over.
Open validation items
3 of 7 Items still open or unvalidated, each with a named owner in Panel 05. Counted, not scored — this is a tally, not a confidence estimate.Tradeoffs accepted
- Highest transition burden of the three options.
- A cutover window constrained to two viable quarters.
- A cost advantage narrow enough to be reversed by a single failed assumption.
Handoff — where Fluence stops
- ProcurementSourcing and negotiation
- FinanceModel validation and budget
- IT security & architectureTechnical diligence
- LegalContract review
Procurement support pack. The decision matrix at the agreed weights, the three-year cost model with the vendor-supplied line flagged, the risk and dependency log with named owners, and the four conditions on approval. Implementation planning is scoped separately.