Digital TransformationRegaining control of your systems
We help chief executives decide, on the figures, whether to keep, renegotiate or replace a system, including an ERP, while reducing their dependence on software vendors and confining each tool to its proper role. Your systems should serve your performance, not dictate it.
For chief executives whose digital tools cost more than they return, or slow decisions down.
The full cost of your tools and dependencies, and the possible savings, quantified.
A map of tools and contracts, a rationalisation plan and exit scenarios.
Keep, renegotiate or replace, knowing the figures.
Signs that a tool costs more than it returns
Licence and maintenance charges rise while the service stays the same.
Bespoke developments that no one fully understands any longer make every change slow and costly.
Your data is difficult to extract, or its extraction is charged for.
Several tools do the same thing, and no one knows how many subscriptions are actually used.
The vendor sets your timetable: end of maintenance, enforced migration, new licensing model.
What we do
Mapping and costing
An inventory of your tools and contracts, their full cost (licences, maintenance, hosting, development, internal time) and your dependencies: data, skills, exit clauses.
Rationalising
Each tool is confined to its role. Duplicates are removed, unused subscriptions are cancelled, and contracts are renegotiated on the basis of the figures.
Reducing dependence
Exit provisions, data portability, open standards where they perform as well, and an exit scenario prepared before it is needed.
The cost of a software estate no longer managed
Illustrative example. The figures are working assumptions for a fictitious company, not a client result. They show the order of magnitude of what a diagnostic brings to light.
| Item | Assumption | Annual amount |
|---|---|---|
| Starting software spend | Licences and subscriptions €300k, maintenance and support €120k, bespoke development €60k | €480k |
| Unused subscriptions cancelled | 15% of subscriptions | €45k |
| Maintenance renegotiated | 10% of the contract | €12k |
| Duplicates removed | Two tools doing the same thing | €20k |
| Recurring savings | Total of the three preceding lines, i.e. 16% of spend | €77k |
Over three years, the saving reaches €231k, without changing any core system. The assumption is deliberately cautious: Zylo measures an average of 53% of SaaS licences unused over thirty days among its clients, though these are mostly large organisations.
Our approach, step by step
- Listening and taking stock. Interviews with the leadership team, business functions and IT; collection of contracts and invoices. Deliverable: a map of tools, contracts and dependencies.
- Costing in full. Licences, maintenance, hosting, development, internal time, and the exit cost of each critical tool. Deliverable: the full cost by tool and by process.
- Building the scenarios. Keep, renegotiate, rationalise or replace, each costed over the same period, including that of changing nothing. Deliverable: comparable scenarios and a rationalisation plan.
- Deciding. You choose, on the figures. The engagement can end there.
- Implementing, if you wish. Renegotiations, cancellations, exit provisions and then, if a tool has to change, a requirements specification and selection. Deliverable: the savings achieved, measured against the starting point.
The expected benefits
Costs under control. Every euro of software is attached to a use and an owner.
A better negotiating position. You negotiate with an exit scenario prepared, rather than from a position of dependence.
Faster decisions. Tools confined to their role, accessible data, fewer developments to maintain.
The risks we address from the outset
- Hidden dependence: data, skills or developments that only one supplier understands.
- Underestimated exit costs: contractual clauses, data migration, a period of parallel running.
- Savings that do not materialise: a subscription cancelled on paper but still invoiced.
- Staff support: a tool withdrawn without a replacement for those who use it.
Why now
Two deadlines make the question a practical one. SAP has set the end of 2027 for the end of mainstream maintenance of ECC, with paid extended maintenance until the end of 2030. And from 12 January 2027 the EU Data Act removes cloud switching charges, subject to exceptions: leaving a provider becomes less expensive, provided it has been prepared.
Dependence also carries an immediate cost. Following Broadcom’s acquisition of VMware, CIOs surveyed by Cigref reported bills multiplied by 3 to 12 (Le Monde Informatique, 22 May 2024). And according to the Capgemini Research Institute (September 2026), 36% of large organisations would need more than twelve months to leave a critical supplier.
Leaving an ERP that has become a constraint
An ageing ERP weighs on margin and on decision speed. Before committing to a project of several months, we cost every option, including that of staying.
What others offer, and where we stand
No group of providers brings together three things: independence from software vendors, an economic assessment of the decision, and a format suited to the size of the business. That is the position we occupy.
| Providers | What they offer | Their limitation for a chief executive |
|---|---|---|
| Software vendors and systems integrators | Diagnostics and migrations to their own solution | The advice leads to their product; the question of leaving is not raised |
| Large strategy and transformation consultancies | Transformation programmes and operating models | Format and fees designed for large groups, often linked to an implementation business |
| Audit and IT consultancies | Software selection methods | Little costing of staying or leaving |
| Third-party support and licensing specialists | Non-vendor maintenance, licence audit and renegotiation | A single answer, sold by the firm that carries it out |
| Part-time CIOs and independent consultants | IT strategy, tool selection, project management | A technical approach, seldom linked to the profit and loss account |
Where we differ: we speak in terms of margin, cash and enterprise value, and we always cost the scenario of changing nothing.
Our role
We do not rebuild what already exists
Where a capable solution already exists, we help you choose and integrate it. Where none exists, or your revised processes require it, we design the tool to measure.
We are independent of software vendors
Our only interest is your result.
The choice remains yours
Hosting and operations can stay with your usual providers. We help you compare and negotiate; the decision is yours.
For data and artificial intelligence, see AI Transformation.
Frequently asked questions
Does reducing dependence necessarily mean changing vendor?
No. Renegotiating a contract, retrieving your data in an open format and drafting an exit provision are often enough to restore the balance. Changing tool is only one scenario among several.
What does rationalising the role of each tool mean?
Deciding what each tool should do, and nothing more. A tool that goes beyond its role creates duplication, bespoke development and dependence.
Do you work with open-source solutions?
Where they perform as well and their full cost is lower, yes. The choice rests on full cost and on the service provided, not on preference or principle.
How long does the diagnostic take?
A few weeks, depending on the number of tools and sites. Scope and duration are agreed together before we begin. Fees are agreed at the outset of each engagement.
Do our IT teams need to be involved?
A few interviews and access to contracts and invoices are sufficient for the diagnostic. We work with your teams and your suppliers, without taking their place.
Do your systems cost you more than they return?
We reply in writing within 48 working hours.
