The Situation
DHGS has decided to bring in an external supplier to support the data migration. Two suppliers have been shortlisted and have submitted proposals. You have been asked to evaluate them and make a recommendation.
The migration programme is structured around four PDM phases:
| Phase | Description |
|---|---|
| LA - Landscape Analysis | Understand the source systems, scope the migration, produce the LDS and initial GAM |
| GAM - Gap Analysis and Mapping | Complete the detailed field-level mapping from source to target |
| MDE - Migration Design and Execution | Design and build the ETL routines; run migration rehearsals and go-live |
| LD - Legacy Decommissioning | Retire the legacy systems in a controlled and documented way |
The Proposals
Proposal A: Logia
Logia is a Value Added Reseller (VAR) for the ERP platform DHGS has selected. They have extensive knowledge of the target system and have implemented it at several similar organisations.
Proposed resourcing:
| Phase | FTE |
|---|---|
| LA | 2 |
| GAM + MDE (combined) | 6 |
| LD | Not included - “out of scope for this engagement” |
Approach summary:
Logia proposes a two-stage engagement. Stage 1 is a light-touch Landscape Analysis to understand the source systems at a high level. Stage 2 combines Gap Analysis and Migration Design into a single integrated phase, arguing that the two activities are closely related and can be run in parallel once the target system design is confirmed. Logia emphasises their deep knowledge of the target ERP as a key differentiator and notes that their familiarity with the target data model will accelerate the mapping work.
Proposal B: HAL
HAL is a mid-tier supplier with a broad systems integration and data migration practice. They claim to have a proprietary migration methodology and specialised tooling, though they were unable to provide formal documentation of either during the tender process.
Proposed resourcing:
| Phase | FTE |
|---|---|
| LA | 5 |
| GAM (High Level Design) | 10 |
| MDE (Detailed Design) | 10 |
| LD | Not included - “client responsibility” |
Approach summary:
HAL proposes a three-stage engagement. Stage 1 is a thorough Landscape Analysis using their own toolset to profile the source data. Stage 2 is a High Level Design phase covering gap analysis and mapping at a business level. Stage 3 is a Detailed Design phase covering ETL specification and execution. HAL notes that early delivery of the High Level Design in Stage 2 will enable data profiling to begin, allowing quality issues to surface earlier in the programme.
Your Task
Evaluate both proposals against PDM principles and your knowledge of the DHGS context. Write your assessment covering:
- What concerns, if any, do you have about each proposal?
- What strengths does each proposal have?
- Which proposal would you recommend, and why?
- What questions would you ask each supplier before making a final decision?
- What is missing from both proposals, and what does that mean for the programme?
There is no single correct answer on the recommendation - but there are clearly wrong reasons for choosing, and there are several red flags in both proposals that a PDM-trained practitioner should spot.
Things to Consider
Before writing your assessment, think through:
- Logia’s decision to combine GAM and MDE into a single phase - is this a methodological choice or a commercial one?
- HAL’s inability to produce documentation of their own methodology during the tender - what does this imply for how you would manage them?
- The difference in LA resourcing between the two proposals (2 FTE vs 5 FTE) for a programme covering 10+ legacy systems
- HAL’s plan to use their own toolset during LA - what are the implications for data ownership and continuity?
- The phrase “not included” / “client responsibility” for Legacy Decommissioning in both proposals
- What DHGS’s local policies (small customer exit, ABC methodology change) mean for the complexity of the mapping work
Take your time. This is one of the most consequential decisions in the early stages of a migration programme.