Don't take our word for it.

A global API CDMO wanted its two Indian plants on the group's European SAP core model. The plants ran on Navision and paper.

We took the plants from Navision and paper onto the existing core model, steered the Indian integrator on the client's side and ran computerised system validation across both continents.

Because the architecture was fixed before the build started, it did not change once during the project. Both plants went live in parallel.

A defence group needed one integrated system landscape for plants in Europe and the US, under strict export control and data sovereignty rules.

We owned the global architecture and steered up to seven integrators. Integration platform and monitoring were redesigned from scratch, and ITAR, CUI and CMMC requirements were built into one architecture, so data stays where it has to.

The program also taught us to run every request through a design authority that weighs it against the architecture, with the mandate to say no when it would over-engineer the solution.

A pharma manufacturer built a new API factory and needed the complete information system ready before production started.

We ran the IT program alongside construction and designed the GMP processes lean from the start, instead of copying the old site.

Eight integrators worked on ERP, LIMS, document management, access control and infrastructure. We orchestrated them as one program, with one architecture and one set of rules, so every system fitted the same validated chain.

The validated system was ready before the equipment was qualified, so the systems never held up the plant.

An aerospace manufacturer launched a cross-system program with several integrators. Without common rules, each would have designed its own interfaces, data and tests, and the client would have paid for every gap between them.

What the client gained: one clear rulebook that every team and integrator works from. Interfaces, data and tests follow the same rules, so integrators spend their time building rather than negotiating, and the client keeps control of the design across all of them.

What we did: we structured the program and its governance, including the interface with Compliance, wrote the rulebook, defined the functional, technical and testing rules, and specified the components required. We defined what had to be done and under which rules; the integrator delivered within its own scope.

Inspectors and customers expect proof that GMP data cannot be changed unnoticed. Most sites have the systems, but no method to review them.

We map every process and the data it creates, assess each system for data integrity and build a risk-based plan for reviewing audit trails.

The method works with the systems the site already has. It was validated by a major US pharma customer of our client.

An aero-engine supplier runs engineering, production, supply and finance on three core systems that have to work as one.

We own the global solution architecture and the functional integration between ERP, PLM and MES, so engineering changes flow into production and finance without breaks.

Our role is the space between the systems: which system is master for which data, how flows are synchronised, and how each integrator's scope fits the whole.