A go-live date that has moved twice. Integration dependencies that are still marked TBC six months out. Business users who have stopped attending testing sessions. A system integrator and client who are running two different versions of the programme status. These are not project management problems. They are governance problems, and they compound until the programme fails or delivers far less than it promised. Starkhorn provides independent programme assurance for ERP, cloud migration, and digital transformation programmes in mid-market and PE-backed businesses: honest scrutiny, no vendor relationship, no delivery revenue on the line. The person who reviews it reports directly to your board.
McKinsey research finds 70% of large IT transformations fail to achieve their original objectives. Gartner data shows the average ERP exceeds budget by 27% and runs over timeline by 33%. These are not exceptional outcomes. They are the median experience.
The difference between programmes that succeed and programmes that fail is rarely the technology. It is the governance, the SI relationship, the accumulated Transformation Debt of deferred decisions and compromised architecture, and the absence of independent scrutiny that would have caught the problems before they became fatal.
Starkhorn provides that scrutiny, with no vendor relationship, no delivery revenue at stake, and no interest in the outcome except getting the programme back on track.
Served as interim Group Technology Director at VetPartners, overseeing technology across a GBP 1.2bn veterinary group with multiple ERP systems inherited through acquisition.
Led programme governance for ERP rationalisation across 850+ sites in nine countries. Managed SI relationships and board-level programme reporting through a period of significant operational complexity.
Delivered vendor consolidation and programme governance frameworks that replaced ad-hoc approaches across a fragmented, multi-country estate.
Served as CIO and CISO at Jardine Motors Group through two major M&A transactions totalling over GBP 700m.
Provided independent technology assurance for both deals, including integration architecture review, TSA planning, and programme governance for the post-acquisition integration workstreams.
Achieved zero FCA and SMCR regulatory findings across both transactions.
Delivered digital transformation programme leadership across healthcare and charitable sector organisations, including current fractional engagement at Alzheimer’s Society.
Led programme governance, vendor selection, and board reporting for multi-year technology investments in environments where programme failure carries significant reputational and beneficiary risk.
The first step in every assurance engagement.
A Starkhorn 72-hour initial programme review gives your board or investor an honest, evidence-based picture of where the programme actually stands. Based on documentation review, stakeholder interviews, and assessment against the seven red flags, it produces a clear output within three working days: what is on track, what is at risk, what needs to change, and in what order.
This assessment becomes the foundation for the ongoing assurance engagement or the recommendation that a more fundamental programme reset is required.
Not a progress report from the delivery team.
An independent commercial assessment of whether the programme is structured to deliver its intended business outcome, what transformation debt has accumulated, and what the realistic path to success looks like from here.
Most programmes carry more risk than their status reports show. We find it, quantify it, and give your board the information to make the right decision.
ERP programmes in PE-backed businesses carry additional pressure: compressed timelines, investor scrutiny, and value creation plans that depend on the programme delivering.
Which risks are deal-threatening. Which can be managed. Where the SI relationship needs to be reset. What the board needs to know before the next investor review.
When the client and SI are running two different versions of programme status, the programme is heading towards a commercial dispute. Independent assurance creates a shared, evidence-based view that both parties can work from and removes the ambiguity that drives conflict.
Starkhorn has the technical standing to have difficult conversations with SIs on your behalf, grounded in contractual reality, not emotion.
Most organisations significantly underestimate the stabilisation and adoption work required after go-live. The programme does not end at cutover. Benefits need to be realised, Transformation Debt addressed, and the business operating model adapted to the new system.
Post go-live assurance reviews benefit realisation against the business case and builds the plan to close the gap.
Gartner estimates the average ERP programme exceeds its original budget by 27% and its timeline by 33%. Panorama Consulting found 81% of ERP implementations experienced at least one significant disruption. The cost of a failed or significantly delayed programme is almost always a multiple of the cost of independent assurance.
The programmes that deliver are the ones with independent scrutiny in place before the warning signs become fatal.
Every month without assurance is a month where Transformation Debt accumulates, SI relationships deteriorate, and the gap between programme status and programme reality widens.
Starkhorn has no relationship with any system integrator, no delivery revenue on any programme, and no commercial interest in a particular technology outcome. The only interest is whether the programme delivers what it promised.
Every assurance review produces output your board can act on: a clear programme status, identified risks with commercial impact, a prioritised remediation plan, and a recommendation on whether the current trajectory will deliver. Not a technical document. A board decision support tool.
A 72-hour initial review is achievable because Starkhorn starts from programme documentation and structured stakeholder interviews, not a lengthy scoping phase. When a programme is in trouble, speed matters. Boards need answers in days, not weeks.
20+ years in technology and security, 15+ of them in leadership roles, means Starkhorn can read a programme plan, an integration architecture, a change control log, and a SI contract and identify what they are hiding as well as what they are showing.
Programme Assurance Engagement Model
Starkhorn’s programme assurance engagements are structured in three modes: the 72-hour initial review for urgent situations, ongoing assurance for active programmes, and post go-live benefit realisation reviews. All three are available as standalone engagements or as part of a broader fractional or interim CIO mandate.
72-hour initial review: documentation, interviews, red flag assessment
Ongoing assurance: monthly board reporting, SI relationship management, benefit tracking
Post go-live: benefit realisation review, Transformation Debt remediation plan
Programmes that are in trouble almost always show the signs months before they fail. The question is whether anyone with the independence and standing to act on those signs is in the room.
“The Transformation Debt concept names something every programme manager knows but few organisations are willing to confront: the deferred decisions and compromised architecture that accumulate silently and then surface catastrophically at go-live. Independent assurance is the only way to surface it in time.” Daniel Jacobs, Founder, Starkhorn
The seven red flags for ERP and transformation programmes are available as a free assessment. Score your programme against each signal and get an honest read on whether independent assurance is warranted.
Seven questions. Five minutes. Immediate results. No obligation.
If your programme board has lost confidence, your investor is asking questions you cannot answer, or you have a go-live decision to make and the programme status is unclear, Starkhorn can engage quickly. A 72-hour initial review gives you the information to make the right call.
This is not a sales conversation. It is a genuine assessment of your programme situation and an honest recommendation on what needs to happen next.
Available for mid-market, PE-backed, and infrastructure organisations with active programmes.
Whether you have an ERP programme that has lost momentum, a go-live approaching with integration gaps unresolved, an SI relationship that has broken down, or a post go-live benefits shortfall that nobody is addressing: start with a conversation.
Seven red flags
These patterns appear in nearly every ERP or transformation programme that later fails. Any two of them, and an independent review is overdue.
| # | Red flag |
|---|---|
| 1 | Scope changes not reflected in the business case or benefits register |
| 2 | Go-live date has moved two or more times |
| 3 | Three or more integration points still recorded as TBC six months before go-live |
| 4 | Business users have disengaged from UAT or requirements workshops |
| 5 | The system integrator is blaming the client for delays and vice versa |
| 6 | Programme board has stopped meeting regularly |
| 7 | Security architecture and data governance have not been formally designed within six months of go-live |
Transformation Debt
The concept most programme reviews miss.
| Type of Transformation Debt | What it looks like | Consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Deferred scope decisions | Requirements documented as assumptions rather than confirmed decisions | Scope disputes at go-live with the SI, delays, and cost overruns |
| Compromised architecture | Technical shortcuts taken early to hit interim milestones without documenting the rework required | Integration failures post-go-live; system instability |
| Silent stakeholder loss | Business users stopped attending workshops; workarounds agreed verbally but not in scope | Low adoption, shadow systems, benefits not realised |
| Ungoverned change requests | Scope expanded informally without business case updates or board approval | Budget exhaustion before the programme delivers its core objective |
Common questions
What is programme assurance and how is it different from a project review?
A project review typically assesses a programme at a single point in time against its plan. Programme assurance is ongoing independent scrutiny of whether the programme is structured to deliver its intended business outcome, not just whether it is on schedule. Assurance asks the harder questions: is the scope still right? Is the SI relationship healthy? Is the business ready to adopt what is being built?
How quickly can an independent review begin?
A Starkhorn 72-hour initial programme review is possible: an independent read of your current programme status within three working days, based on documentation review, stakeholder interviews, and an assessment of your programme against the seven red flags. This is designed for urgent situations where a board or investor needs an honest picture fast.
What does McKinsey say about ERP transformation failure rates?
McKinsey research consistently finds that 70% of large IT transformations fail to achieve their original objectives. Gartner data shows the average ERP implementation exceeds budget by 27% and runs over timeline by 33%. Panorama Consulting found 81% of ERP implementations experienced at least one significant disruption. These are not outlier statistics. They are the median experience.
Does independent assurance create conflict with the SI?
A well-structured assurance engagement actually reduces SI conflict, because it creates a shared, evidence-based view of programme status that both the client and the SI can work from. The conflict tends to come from ambiguity and blame: programme assurance removes both. It also ensures the client has the technical standing to have difficult commercial conversations with the SI when required.
Is assurance relevant if the programme is already past go-live?
Yes. Post-go-live assurance reviews the realised benefits against the business case, identifies the transformation debt accumulated during implementation, and builds the plan to address it. Most organisations significantly underestimate the stabilisation and adoption work required after go-live. The programme does not end at cutover.
72-hour review
A 72-hour initial programme review gives your board or investor an honest, evidence-based picture of where the programme actually stands and what needs to happen next. No vendor relationship, no SI conflict.
Request a 72-hour programme reviewScore your programme against the seven red flags for ERP and transformation failure. Free, takes five minutes, and tells you whether independent assurance is warranted.
A 72-hour initial programme review for boards and investors that need an honest picture fast. Documentation review, stakeholder interviews, and a clear output within three working days.
Weekly technology leadership insights.
Read past editions →