Platform Rebuild & Enterprise Automation for a $68M Diversified Management Group
Flowgentic assumed responsibility for the client’s internal engineering function and rebuilt in seven weeks the custom ERP platform their team had spent three and a half years trying to bring to stable production, delivering more than 5.5 million lines of production code in the process. The engagement then expanded into a 24-opportunity automation program representing $2.0M–$3.7M in modeled annual value across 11 portfolio companies.
Executive Summary
The client is a $68M diversified management group with 11 portfolio companies spanning asset integrity, construction, oil and gas, healthcare, and real estate. Demand across the portfolio was strong and growing.
The operating model behind that growth was not keeping pace. Manual back-office processes were scaling with the business, systems were fragmented across the organization, and an internal engineering team had spent three and a half years building Custom ERP Software that never reached stable production. That platform had become a critical dependency for many downstream automation initiatives.
Flowgentic began with a company-wide AI strategy assessment to understand how work moved across the organization, quantify manual effort, identify system dependencies, and determine where AI and automation could create the most value. The assessment identified 24 automation opportunities across eight departments, each evaluated for effort, systems, complexity, execution readiness, and economic impact.
The resulting program moved into two concurrent workstreams: a platform transition that rebuilt the Custom ERP Software into stable production in seven weeks, delivering more than 5.5 million lines of production code, and an enterprise automation roadmap sequenced by value, readiness, and business priority.
Client Profile
- $68M Group Revenue
- 11 Portfolio Companies
- ~400 Employees
- 8 Departments Assessed
- 5 Industries Served
- Microsoft-Centric Systems Landscape
Industries Served
Key Findings
ERP Not Production Ready
Three and a half years of internal development had not produced stable Custom ERP Software. Company-specific repositories, no automated testing, and no security scanning created a fragile foundation. Many of the highest-value downstream automation opportunities depended on resolving the platform first.
Coordination Scaling With Headcount
The company-wide AI strategy assessment identified approximately 12,300 hours of annual manual effort across eight departments. Operator qualification management alone had become a saturated 40-hour-per-week manual role, with proctoring outsourced at $75 per hour to cover the vacancy.
Revenue Delayed by Reporting
Client invoicing depended on report delivery, while report assembly remained manual across four disconnected sources. Turnaround averaged 30 days against a 10-day target and reached 95 days during peak season, directly delaying invoicing and cash conversion.
Assessment Approach
Flowgentic worked directly with department leaders and process owners to map workflows, validate manual effort, review system dependencies, and quantify the operational and financial impact of each opportunity. Opportunities were then prioritized based on value, complexity, execution readiness, and dependency on the core platform.
How Hours Were Derived
- Structured interviews were conducted across Accounting, HR, Compliance, Asset Integrity, Data & Document Control, Business Development, Operations, and DevOps leadership.
- Process owners estimated weekly time spent by themselves and their teams using ranges rather than single-point estimates.
- A burdened labor rate of $65/hour was applied consistently, with $150/hour used for senior leadership time.
- Each opportunity includes a specific missing-data field. Where client confirmation was unavailable, conservative assumptions were used and flagged accordingly.
Data Sources for Validation
- Confirmed business-unit revenue and report volume used to derive per-report revenue and quantify turnaround value
- Confirmed outsourced processing spend tested against the share of that work that is rules-based versus judgment-based
- Invoice volume cross-referenced against AP effort estimates and industry error-rate benchmarks
- 811 ticket volume measured against the saturation point of a single dedicated FTE
Data Categories Reviewed
| Category | Data Reviewed | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| Financial Performance | Group revenue, per-BU revenue, burdened labor rates | Trailing 12 months |
| Staffing | ~400 employees | Current state |
| Accounting & Billing | Invoice volume, billing step count, packet assembly, AR/AP cycle | 6 opportunities scoped |
| HR & Compliance | Onboarding/offboarding step counts, OQ tracking, credential platforms | 5 opportunities scoped |
| Document Control | Report volume, QA queue depth, turnaround days, outsourced spend | 3 opportunities scoped |
| Engineering Platform | Repository structure, test coverage, deployment frequency, security tooling | 5-person internal dev team |
Manual Coordination Cost
The 24 opportunities group into six delivery clusters. Hours are annualized from weekly time-on-task estimates; identified value combines recovered labor with the revenue, rework, and risk exposure quantified per opportunity.
| Cluster | Opps | Representative Workstreams | Est. Annual Hours | Identified Annual Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Asset Integrity & Document Control | 6 | Client report assembly, QA final review, daily survey validation, KPI dashboards, MSA intake | ~3,300 | $879K–$1.59M |
| Compliance & Regulatory Ops | 2 | Operator qualification management, 811 one-call ticket lifecycle across 5 states | ~4,050 | $215K–$395K |
| HR & Workforce | 4 | Capacity planning & crew-gap fill, onboarding, offboarding, performance review triggers | ~1,450 | $345K–$670K |
| Business Development & Product | 3 | Bid lifecycle & BOM extraction, corrosion-report subscription feature, marketing inventory | ~1,040 | $323K–$575K |
| Accounting & Billing | 6 | Billing & invoice assembly, AP validation, consolidated P&L packets, AR reporting, payroll integration | ~1,900 | $163K–$274K |
| Platform & Cross-Functional | 3 | DevOps platform modernization, dev/IT request intake, work-management integration & live org chart | ~550 | $120K–$195K |
| Total Identified Opportunity | ~12,300 | $2.05M–$3.70M | ||
Hours exclude two opportunities whose weekly effort was not yet quantified at discovery — the platform modernization workstream and client report assembly — so the true baseline sits above 12,300. Value figures are the register's modeled benefit ranges, pending client validation of flagged assumptions.
Delivered Solutions
Two concurrent workstreams — DevOps Platform Transition and AI Automation Delivery — delivered across three quarters. Platform work was sequenced first because every automation cluster depended on it; automation delivery accelerated as platform stability was achieved.
Technology Stack & Infrastructure
Current Systems Retained
No system of record is replaced. Automation integrates across the existing stack.
- ERP / AccountingBusiness Central + QuickBooks
- Payroll / HRISADP + Employee Navigator
- Work ManagementMonday.com
- GIS / Field SurveyArcGIS + Survey 123
- Compliance PlatformsISN, NCCER, Energy World Net
- CRM / BiddingDynamics 365 + Custom ERP Software
Technology Introduced
A consolidated platform runtime plus the automation layer that coordinates workflows across the retained systems.
- Platform RuntimeManaged Container Platform
- CodebaseConsolidated Single Repository
- AI Document ProcessingEnterprise LLM + Document Extraction
- Engineering PipelineAutomated CI/CD + Security Scanning
- Delivery GovernanceDual Living Roadmaps
Infrastructure Components
Container Orchestration
Managed Kubernetes — shared cluster, 6 company namespaces
Database
Managed SQL — 6 isolated per-company databases
File Storage
Managed object storage — file & image attachments
Container Registry
Private container registry
Infrastructure Cost Scaling
Client-owned infrastructure was reduced from approximately $110K–$120K annually to an estimated $17K–$35K annually under the new architecture.
Third-party infrastructure is client-owned and billed at cost, not marked up through delivery fees. Current volume across eleven entities places estimated steady-state infrastructure at $1,400–$2,950/month — under 1.5% of the identified annual value at the low end.
| Component | Primary Cost Driver | Monthly | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|
| Managed Kubernetes Cluster | Shared cluster, 11 entities / 6 namespaces | $800–1,500 | $9,600–18,000 |
| Managed SQL Databases | Per-company databases (6) | $300–600 | $3,600–7,200 |
| LLM API Usage | Automation portfolio volume | $200–600 | $2,400–7,200 |
| Object Storage | File & image attachments | $50–150 | $600–1,800 |
| Container Registry | Fixed | $50–100 | $600–1,200 |
| Total (All Components) | Mixed volume | $1,400–2,950 | $16,800–35,400 |
What's Explicitly Out of Scope
Governance & Change Management
A program spanning six companies and two workstreams needs governance that lets leadership re-sequence without renegotiating. Two living roadmap documents carry the plan; a quarterly authorization gate carries the commitment.
Go / No-Go Decision Points
Nothing is committed more than one quarter ahead. Each slate is authorized on its own merits.
Quarterly Slate Authorization
Review: Proposed delivery slate, presented no later than 2 weeks before quarter start
→ Written approval required before any work on that slate commences
Monthly Managerial Review
Review: Roadmap progress across both workstreams
→ Re-sequence within the roadmap or raise a Change Order
Bi-Weekly Working Session
Review: Blockers, dependencies, and delivery status on both sides
→ Adjust in-quarter execution without a formal gate
Q4 Delivery Review
Review: Year-1 value realization plus Year 2–3 infrastructure forecast
→ Deploy 2027 continuation capacity or hold at current state
Change Management Approach
Two living documents — Platform Transition and Automation Delivery — updated on a rolling basis
↳ Re-sequencing between quarters needs no Change Order
One draft iteration each; client accepts or rejects within 5 business days
↳ Single consolidated set of stakeholder comments, not serial rounds
Written request, Flowgentic response within 2 business days
↳ No work starts before both parties sign
Leadership-enforced single channel for the new intake workflow
↳ A prior internally-built intake form failed on adoption, not function
10-business-day window after discovery, roadmap alignment, and Executive Review
↳ Client can exit owing only fees incurred to that point
Mandatory 2-month transition period on termination for convenience
↳ Orderly handover at unchanged scope and rate
Key Execution Risks & Mitigations
Risk: Platform Dependency
Platform modernization underpins every other automation; a slip cascades across all 24 opportunities
Platform Transition sequenced first and completed in Q2; automation clusters accelerate as stability is proven
Risk: Adoption, Not Function
A previously built internal intake form received zero submissions — the failure was behavioral, not technical
Leadership-enforced single channel, with adoption discipline established through low-cost quick wins first
Risk: External API Availability
Credential platforms, GIS services, the Custom ERP Software, and state 811 portals are all integration dependencies outside the automation layer
API access confirmed as an explicit gate before each phase's design begins; state portal access validated ahead of the 811 pilot
The dominant risk on this engagement was sequencing, not feasibility — which is why the platform rebuild ran first and quarterly authorization keeps forward commitment to a single quarter.
Stakeholder Accountability
Client Team
| Role | Responsibility |
|---|---|
| Executive Sponsor | Strategic direction and approval across all six operating companies |
| Financial Sponsor (P&L Owner) | ROI validation and financial sign-off on delivered value |
| Program Point of Contact | Scheduling, coordination, and quarterly slate authorization |
| Internal Dev Lead | Codebase consolidation, platform handover, and third-party API access confirmation |
| Business Unit Champions | Per-opportunity process ownership across Accounting, HR, Compliance, Asset Integrity, and Business Development |
Flowgentic Team
| Role | Responsibility |
|---|---|
| Head of Engineering & Delivery | Technical roadmap, platform architecture, and delivery accountability across both workstreams |
| Head of GTM & Partnerships | Commercial relationship, scope management, and Change Order administration |
| Platform Engineering | Codebase consolidation, platform deployment, CI/CD pipeline, and security scanning |
| Automation Engineering | Per-opportunity build, integration, testing, and deployment |
| Strategic Capacity | Discovery, requirements definition, workflow mapping, and solution architecture on emerging priorities |
Business Value & ROI
Figures below represent the identified annual value from the company-wide AI strategy assessment. Each opportunity was modeled individually using validated inputs and clearly flagged assumptions where client confirmation was still pending. These figures represent identified potential value, not realized results.
Identified Annual Value at Steady State
3-Year Projection
Assumes approximately 35% of identified value is captured during the initial delivery period as opportunities are deployed progressively across Q2–Q4, approximately 80% in the following phase as the remaining roadmap is completed, and full steady-state value thereafter. No growth is assumed.
Payback Period
6–11 Months
5-Year Value
$8.5M–$15.3M
Program Timeline
Q1
AI Strategy Assessment
Q2
ERP Rebuild & Platform Stabilization
Q3
Automation Delivery
Q4
Expanded Automation & Operational Scale
Next Phase
Ongoing Roadmap Execution
Client-owned infrastructure was reduced from approximately $110K–$120K annually to an estimated $17K–$35K annually under the new architecture.
Implementation Timeline
Company-Wide AI Strategy Assessment
24 automation opportunities identified, scoped, and economically modeled across eight departments.
ERP Rebuild & Platform Transition
Flowgentic assumed responsibility for the internal engineering function and rebuilt the Custom ERP Software into stable production in seven weeks.
Quick-Win Automation
401(k) reporting, Dev/IT intake, work-management integration, and the 811 ticket lifecycle pilot advanced in parallel with the platform rebuild.
Accounting & Document Control
Report assembly, QA automation, billing, AP validation, and consolidated P&L initiatives delivered.
Workforce, Compliance & Bid Lifecycle
Capacity planning, workforce qualification management, onboarding and offboarding, and bid automation delivered.
Roadmap Expansion
Additional opportunities continue to be prioritized based on value, readiness, dependencies, and leadership priorities.
Initiative Priority Matrix
Sequencing was set by economic value and execution readiness together — not value alone. Two of the earliest initiatives were chosen for pattern validation and adoption, with financial return explicitly secondary.
| Initiative | Business Impact | Execution Complexity | Priority | Requires Exec Approval | Approval Trigger |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DevOps Platform Transition | Very High(unblocks all 24 opportunities) | High | 1 | Yes | SOW execution, platform and repo access |
| Client Report Assembly | Very High(revenue recognition; 2.1-month payback) | Medium | 2 | Yes | Client-facing output changes |
| HR Capacity Planning | Very High(scramble-hire premium; 6.1-month payback) | High | 3 | Yes | Credential platform API access |
| 811 Ticket Lifecycle | High(compliance-critical; federal + 5 state statutes) | High | 4 | Yes | Multi-state portal API access |
| Operator Qualification Management | High(40 hr/wk role; project start delays) | High | 5 | No | Within approved quarterly slate |
| Bid Lifecycle Automation | Medium–High(win-rate upside from faster turnaround) | High | 6 | No | Gated on Custom ERP Software rewrite completion |
| Quick-Win Cluster | Medium(integration patterns, adoption discipline) | Low | 7 | No | Within approved scope |
Talk to an Expert Today
Schedule a free consultation to discuss your automation needs and explore how we can reduce administrative burden while improving patient care.