Two health systems, one Workday platform

Sector

Healthcare, a merged health system

Engagement

Independent, client-side program leadership

How I was hired

Directly by the client, not through a staffing firm

Platform

Workday, full platform. HCM, Payroll, Finance, Supply Chain, reporting

Delivery partner

A top implementation firm, managed to plan

Result

94% user adoption vs KPI targets; go-live and hypercare

On paper the merger was done. The systems said otherwise.

Two regional health organizations had merged into one health system. On paper the merger was done. In practice the two sides still ran on different systems, different processes, and different ideas about how work got done. Leadership chose Workday as the platform to put the combined organization on one foundation.

2Organizations that had to make combined decisions before they felt combined.

1Foundation, which meant every legacy difference had to be settled, not carried.

DecideThe scarce act. Re-decision is what stalls a merger program.

HoldThe integrator to the plan, which is the client-side job nobody else does.

The program was large and cross-functional. It spanned HR, Finance, Supply Chain, Payroll, and IT, and it carried a parallel time-and-attendance track that had to line up with the Workday schedule. The client needed someone on their side of the table to run it day to day, keep many stakeholder groups moving together, and hold the integrator to the plan.

An independent voice, hired by the client

I was hired directly by the health system as an independent program leader. Not placed by a staffing agency, and not part of the integrator delivering the software. I sat on the client side and answered to the client.

That independence is the point. It let me push the integrator on scope, timeline, and quality without a conflict of interest, and it gave the executives a program voice that was theirs, not the vendor's.

The client-side program office: plan, schedule, RAID, and the reporting

I ran the client-side program office: plan, schedule, RAID, and the reporting that kept executives and workstreams looking at the same truth.

I stood up and ran a three-tier governance model, strategic, program, and functional, with an executive steering committee, a joint steering committee with the integrator, cross-functional leads, and workstream leads. Each level had defined decision authority and a clear escalation path. Most decisions were made at the workstream level, a smaller share escalated to program leadership, and only the few that mattered went to the executive committee. That distribution is what keeps a merger program from stalling in endless re-decision.

A merger program does not stall on configuration. It stalls on re-decision.The same question returns because nobody recorded who decided, or why. Governance that logs the reasoning is what stops the second argument before it starts.

I held the integrator to the plan and the change process, and I led the executive briefings across HCM, Finance, Supply Chain, and Payroll, translating program status into decisions leaders could act on.

Why it was hard

A single-company ERP program is hard. A merger program is harder, because every design choice is also a negotiation between two ways of working. The platform scope was broad, HCM through Supply Chain, and the time-and-attendance track had to stay in step so that pay and time did not break at go-live. The governance and decision framework were not paperwork. They were the machinery that let a divided organization make combined decisions and stick to them.

1One forum, both organizationsNot two governance structures reporting into a third. A single room where the combined decision actually gets made.Two structures produce two answers.

2Decisions logged with reasoningWhat was decided, by whom, and why. The why is what stops it being reopened in month nine.Reopening is the real cost.

3Hold the integrator to the planClient-side, on the record, in the same forum. Nobody else has the standing to do it.This is what keeps the program honest.

The real test of a merger program is not whether the software configures. It is whether the two organizations keep deciding together long enough to reach go-live.

One health system, one Workday platform, one go-live

The combined health system went live on a single Workday platform and moved into post-go-live support and follow-on work. User adoption reached 94% against the program's preset KPI targets, which is the number that actually matters. It shows people moved onto the new platform, not just that it went live. The governance model held through delivery, which is the outcome that matters most on a merger. The two organizations stayed aligned and kept deciding together all the way to go-live.

The integrator wants scope to grow and the timeline to move

On a program this size, the integrator wants scope to grow and the timeline to move on its terms. A merger raises the stakes, because two organizations are trying to become one while the clock runs. An experienced program leader on the client's side of the table, independent of the vendor, is how you keep the program honest and get it to go-live.

Client anonymized. Details available under NDA.