Master data may not be harmonised ahead of the cutover
What we think may be happening — not what they have told us
The migration scope names master-data harmonisation across eleven entities. If regional material and vendor masters have diverged since the regions were stood up, the cutover date is exposed — and so is anything built on that data afterwards.
What normal looks like
Harmonisation named explicitly in a job scope usually means it is known to be a problem, not that it is finished.
Evidence we are reading it from
- —ERP modernisation is live and mid-flight
- —Regional expansion has outpaced the operating model
What we do not know
- UNKNOWNWhich entity's material and vendor master is treated as authoritative today
- UNKNOWNWhether a data-quality baseline has ever been measured
The question that would settle it
Which entity's material and vendor master is treated as authoritative today, and who signs off a change to it?
Seen beforeKestrel Logistics · S/4HANA master-data harmonisation across 11 entities
Why the CTO
Lands directly on architecture and integration, which sits inside what the CTO owns — the S/4HANA programme and the integration estate across all eleven country entities.
How to raise it
Put it to them as a question about how the process runs, not as a finding. If they confirm it, it becomes evidence. If they do not, it was never a claim.