Debbie Oster
January 29, 2026
Complex system upgrades rarely fail in obvious ways.
More often, they unravel quietly as dependencies compound, ownership blurs, and unresolved decisions accumulate beneath the surface. By the time the risk becomes visible, operational leaders are already absorbing the consequences: unstable systems, mounting regulatory exposure, and growing pressure to hit dates that no longer align with reality.
For many organizations, this is the moment when PMO as a service enters the conversation. Not because internal teams lack capability, but because the execution model itself can no longer absorb the level of complexity involved.
This case illustrates why.
Following an acquisition, a biotech organization inherited a manufacturing facility operating on a Manufacturing Execution System (MES) that had been out of support for more than three years.
That fact alone created a non-negotiable dependency: a broader NetSuite ERP rollout could not proceed until the MES upgrade was completed and stabilized.
The program had been underway for nearly a year, with an original target of July 2025. MustardSeed was brought in late in the lifecycle, after delivery momentum had stalled and key execution gaps had become impossible to ignore.
As the program entered late summer, progress had slowed to a standstill. There was no active project manager, no reliable end-to-end schedule, and no shared understanding of what work actually remained. Critical teams across IT, quality, development, infrastructure, and multiple vendors were working hard, but without alignment or sequencing.
As deadlines slipped, leadership pressure intensified. A September 2025 launch was requested, but without architectural alignment or an executable plan, the date was not achievable. When that milestone passed, the organization made a deliberate decision to extend its existing ERP for six months at a cost of $200,000, accepting a short-term expense to regain control. A new April deadline remains in place, with an additional $300,000 in renewal risk if readiness is not achieved.
At that point, the problem was no longer speed. It was whether the organization could regain execution control before risk escalated further. (You can read the full case study here.)
This pattern is familiar to operations and PMO leaders alike. Systems are “mostly planned,” vendors are engaged, and teams are doing their part, yet progress remains fragile. The underlying issue is rarely effort; it is structural.
Execution pain tends to surface first at the operational level, where manufacturing, quality, and supply chain leaders experience the downstream effects of misalignment.
What is less visible is that these issues are usually rooted upstream, in foundational gaps such as incomplete planning, unclear ownership, fragmented tooling, and decision latency.
Internal PMOs are often expected to deliver current work while simultaneously modernizing how execution happens. In practice, there is rarely enough capacity to do both well, especially in regulated, multi-vendor environments.
This is where project management as a service becomes relevant, not as a staffing model, but as an execution framework that provides additional leadership, structure, and sequencing without disrupting delivery.
MustardSeed was engaged to help the organization regain control of the program, not by replacing internal teams, but by acting as an execution stabilizer during a critical phase.
The first priority was visibility. When MustardSeed assumed responsibility, there was no usable project plan. The schedule had to be reconstructed from the original Statement of Work and whatever activity could be validated. As the plan took shape, significant gaps surfaced. Work that was essential for delivery had never been fully designed, sequenced, or owned.
These gaps included unresolved MES–ERP integration decisions, unplanned data cleanup involving millions of legacy files, missing QA environments, undefined reporting and compliance requirements, and the absence of a failover and recovery design. Individually, none of these issues were insurmountable. Collectively, they explained why progress had stalled and why risk had continued to escalate.
PMO as a service, in this context, functioned as a mechanism to surface hidden work, align stakeholders around reality, and restore disciplined execution.
Once the remaining scope was visible, the program was reorganized into a structured delivery model with clear ownership and sequencing.
Architecture and development work was broken into defined workstreams, QA activities were isolated and planned explicitly, and production readiness and go-live were treated as integrated execution phases rather than afterthoughts.
This structure did not reduce the amount of work required. What it changed was accountability. Teams could see how their contributions fit into the broader plan, dependencies became explicit, and leadership could make informed decisions instead of reacting late.
For PMO leaders, this kind of structure provides air cover. It replaces political escalations with factual conversations and shifts the focus from blame to readiness.
As execution understanding improved, MustardSeed helped establish a cadence of structured collaboration designed to replace stalled email threads and ambiguous escalation paths. Issues were surfaced and resolved in real time, with most addressed within hours rather than days.
More complex constraints, particularly those involving third-party environments, were identified early and managed deliberately rather than discovered at the last moment.
For operations leaders, this translated into fewer surprises and a clearer understanding of what risk remained and why. For transformation leaders, it created a defensible execution narrative grounded in reality.
A defining aspect of working with a project manager as a service in this engagement was proximity.
Rather than advising from a distance, MustardSeed operated inside the program, experiencing the same constraints, deadlines, and pressures as internal teams. This proximity allowed execution decisions to be adjusted in real time and ensured that improvements were grounded in how work actually moved through the organization.
Embedded execution also builds trust. When consultants deliver alongside internal teams, improvements feel collaborative rather than imposed. Over time, this trust becomes the foundation for sustainable change, particularly in environments where regulatory scrutiny and operational risk are constant.
By stabilizing the program, aligning architecture, and making remaining work visible, the organization moved from uncertainty to control. Ownership was established across more than twenty workstreams, financial risk was actively managed, and progress shifted from reactive firefighting to day-by-day readiness management.
This outcome reflects a broader truth: complex system upgrades do not fail because teams lack capability; they fail when complexity goes unmanaged and execution leadership is stretched beyond its limits.
For organizations operating in regulated, business-critical environments, PMO as a service is most effective when it acts as a temporary stabilizing layer rather than a permanent overlay.
Its value lies in restoring execution discipline, reinforcing ownership, and strengthening internal capability so that the organization can sustain progress long after the engagement ends.
For operations leaders, this approach creates space to regain control before risk escalates further. For PMO and transformation leaders, it provides the structure and support needed to bridge the gap between strategy and reality without sacrificing credibility.
This engagement reinforces a simple but often overlooked lesson: speed without control increases risk; stability creates the conditions for progress. When organizations invest in execution leadership through digital PMO as a service, they are not slowing down. They are choosing to move forward with discipline, informed decision-making, and confidence, even in the face of complexity.
In environments where system upgrades, regulatory requirements, and vendor coordination intersect, that choice can make the difference between persistent instability and sustained operational readiness.
If your organization is navigating a complex system upgrade, multi-vendor program, or regulatory deadline that feels increasingly fragile, a short conversation can help you assess whether the execution model in place is actually built to hold.
Our team works alongside operations and PMO leaders to surface hidden dependencies, establish ownership, and restore disciplined execution before risk escalates.
Connect with a MustardSeed PMO expert to discuss your situation and learn how PMO as a service can help your team.
Subscribe for insights and updates.
