Experience builds sound judgment.

Over the years, regional development decisions had caused three core product families to diverge. Customer-specific solutions increased market proximity, but also drove up parts variety, change effort and coordination. Portfolio decisions lacked a clear distinction: Which variety generates revenue – and which merely creates complexity costs?

Created transparency across the variant landscape of all families, assessed the economics of the main complexity drivers and developed a shared module and platform logic for three core families. Reuse targets, degrees of freedom and decision rules were defined so that market requirements and internal economics could be assessed together.

The move from components to systems changed the business model faster than the sales and fulfillment processes. Consulting, sizing and quotation effort increased significantly; even recurring requests consumed scarce engineering capacity at an early stage. The company’s technical expertise itself was at risk of becoming the constraint on growth.

Developed a business target model and digitalization strategy for the systems business, established Guided Selling and technical sizing, implemented CPQ and designed the handovers into order fulfillment. Product logic, sales guidance and result objects were conceived as one coherent process.

Standardizable configurations and genuine engineering orders largely followed the same processes. Standard cases burdened engineering, ETO demand often became visible only late, and data and responsibilities across CPQ, PLM and SAP had not been clarified end to end. Lead time, capacity planning and project risk were therefore unnecessarily difficult to manage.

Defined process classes and fulfillment models, segmented CTO and ETO content, and digitized the CTO scope consistently end to end. Handover objects, data ownership and system roles across CPQ, PLM and SAP were established as binding; genuine engineering degrees of freedom were deliberately retained.

A business unit representing around 40 percent of revenue was expected to open new market segments through additional customer-specific variants. At the same time, variety in parts, inventory and processes was already creating substantial costs. Early product differentiation and forecast-driven production turned the growth objective into a strategic conflict.

Realigned the product-market strategy of the revenue-generating core families and combined market differentiation with internal standardization. The families were structured on a shared platform, Late Configuration was embedded, the point of differentiation was postponed and the transition from push to pull was prepared.

The first CPQ attempt had been abandoned without a robust business target model and with unclear requirements. The system question, use cases and expected result objects had been conflated; confidence, investment certainty and internal acceptance had suffered accordingly. A second attempt could not be launched again as a purely software-driven project.

Analyzed the causes of failure, clarified scope and process classes, described result objects and the data model, and consolidated the requirements. The system decision was restructured on a vendor-neutral basis; the second attempt was then supported from selection and implementation through go-live and SAP integration.

Sales configuration, CAD parameterization, costing and order fulfillment used their own characteristics, rules and data versions. The same product decision was described and maintained repeatedly; changes created coordination effort and inconsistent results. The process chain was technically integrated, but not aligned end to end from a business perspective.

Modeled a shared characteristic space as the central configuration knowledge base, defined data ownership for each object, and connected CPQ, CAD parameterization and ERP to a configuration platform. Change, approval and lifecycle processes were defined so that product knowledge would not be recreated in every system.

A portfolio that had grown over many years contained numerous variants with only minor technical differences. Their customer value and economic contribution, however, were barely transparent. Sales and order fulfillment continued to treat many requests as individual cases, requiring repeated feasibility clarification and making portfolio decisions difficult to prioritize.

Rationalized the product range consistently, assessed the economics of the portfolio and variants, defined product families and preferred variants, and prioritized the most effective modularization levers. Sales and fulfillment processes were then aligned with a more configurable business model.

Complex requests were largely sized and costed manually. Options, quantity structures, engineering effort and approvals were not consistently traceable; comparable requests could lead to different technical and commercial results. Project, margin and approval risks therefore increased before an order was even received.

Defined request and process classes, modeled standardizable solution building blocks, and structured sizing, costing and pricing logic. Approvals for special engineering, commercial deviations and risk-relevant configurations were integrated into an end-to-end quotation process.

Multiple sites with different ERP and PLM systems were to be aligned with a shared configuration logic. Processes, data structures and maturity levels differed significantly. A centralized standard rollout without regard for local dependencies would have accelerated the transformation – while putting operations at risk.

Mapped site processes and system landscapes, developed shared structural and data principles, and assessed local deviations by relevance. This formed the basis for a target architecture with CPQ implementation, clearly defined integration patterns and a robust rollout sequence.

Filling, packaging and palletizing had historically been developed as separate product environments. Each process stage followed its own structures, options and interfaces. The customer, however, bought a complete line whose design still required extensive coordination and engineering across the business units.

Analyzed process stages and interfaces, defined shared modular product system and platform principles, and clarified the variant spaces for each stage. Compatible module boundaries and binding handovers were established across the complete line without sacrificing the necessary autonomy of the core products.

Prices were derived primarily from manufacturing costs and markups. Customer value, technical characteristics, options and market willingness to pay were considered only to a limited extent; margin management depended heavily on manual calculations, blanket discounts and individual knowledge. Variant diversity was visible technically, but barely differentiated in pricing.

Separated costing and pricing conceptually while connecting them in the process. Developed a pricing architecture comprising base prices, characteristic- and option-related surcharges and deductions, and market and customer elements; rules, guardrails and approvals were integrated directly into the configuration process.

Across several business units, more than ten configurators and stand-alone solutions had emerged with their own methods, data models and bills of materials. Costs, maintenance effort and dependencies increased; the shared SAP environment could not absorb the variety consistently. Every additional isolated solution would have increased the subsequent consolidation effort.

Inventoried systems, methods and data environments, defined shared configuration principles and selected three target systems. Data models and methods were harmonized, test scenarios and a proof of concept were established, and a phased consolidation and migration path was designed.

At several sites, machines were largely engineered to order. A shared product architecture was missing; a manual, error-prone gap existed between the sales quotation and the manufacturing BOM. Growth therefore automatically meant more engineering, coordination and local special logic.

Developed a cross-site module and platform architecture, defined variant spaces, rules and degrees of freedom, and created the foundation for sales and order-specific BOM configuration. Product, process, data and system perspectives were aligned together.

Dependencies and exclusions were distributed across expert knowledge, different configurators, Excel files and local tools. Some technical conflicts were not identified until engineering, manufacturing or commissioning. With every product change, dependence on individuals, coordination effort and the risk of contradictory rules increased.

Developed a characteristic and relationship model, structured compatibility and exclusion rules, and established representative test cases. Responsibilities for approval, versioning and maintenance were defined as binding so that rule knowledge would not merely be digitized but remain governable over time.

Sales, engineering and manufacturing BOMs had evolved in separate environments. Characteristics, structures and change states were maintained repeatedly and diverged when products changed; their effects on quotations and orders were difficult to trace. The BOMs existed – but the end-to-end product logic was missing.

Refined the 150% structure as the shared MaxBOM; defined the Sales BOM, eBOM and mBOM as well as views and data ownership. Transformation, validity and change rules were defined and safeguarded through integration and test cases across PLM, CPQ and ERP.

Project solutions were largely redesigned from scratch even though functions, assemblies and technical options recurred. The boundary between standard, configurable solution and genuine engineering remained unclear throughout the project. Effort estimates and resource planning therefore often began too late and on an uncertain basis.

Segmented product families, developed a functional and module structure, and defined interfaces and degrees of standardization. The remaining degrees of freedom were delineated through CTO, CTO+ and ETO process classes and connected with the corresponding fulfillment and engineering content.

Hydraulic and technical sizing was separated from quotation and order data. More than ten historically evolved process variants made a consistent market rollout difficult; changes to duty point, material, drive or accessories had to be transferred and checked multiple times.

Segmented more than ten processes into five process classes – PTO, CTO, CTO+, MTO and ETO. Sizing parameters and calculation logic were structured, the characteristic and rule model aligned, permitted combinations defined and technical result data connected with quotation and order.

Before the S/4HANA transformation, the evolved LO-VC models, characteristics and material master data had not been sufficiently cleaned up from either a business or technical perspective. The future role of AVC and adjacent systems was unresolved. Without preparatory work, the migration would merely have transferred existing complexity to a new platform.

Assessed configuration models and master data, compared LO-VC and AVC, and clarified the target roles of SAP, PLM and CPQ. This resulted in a prioritized cleanup and migration path connecting business model quality with technical transformation.