Client Snapshot (Anonymized)

• Industry: Industrial manufacturing / engineered components
• End Market: Data centers & mission-critical infrastructure
• Growth Context: Extreme hypergrowth driven by a sector boom
• Operating Reality: Multi-site footprint, legacy ERP, concentrated supplier base

‍

Present Risk

The Moment of Risk

The company was growing faster than its operating system had ever been designed to support.

Demand surged.
Headcount expanded rapidly.
Production capacity scaled aggressively.

Internally, leadership felt mounting strain:

• Planning accuracy declined
• Inventory volatility increased
• Decision-making slowed as complexity rose

What wasn’t yet visible was the real risk:

They were making permanent decisions for a temporary market condition.

‍

What Leadership Thought Was Going On

Leadership’s working diagnosis focused on execution:

• “Planning can’t keep up with growth”
• “We’re not getting enough value from our ERP”
• “The system feels brittle under scale”
• “We need to hire a Director of Supply Chain”

Each observation was reasonable and incomplete.

‍

What Pendel Diagnosed Instead

Pendel was brought in during a senior hiring process, as leadership prepared to add a Director of Supply Chain to solve what appeared to be execution strain.

What emerged quickly was that the role itself would have absorbed accountability without authority, hard-coding structural failure rather than resolving it.

This was not an execution problem. It was a decision-system design failure.

Specifically:

• ERP logic enforced assumptions that no longer matched scale
• Governance had not evolved with complexity
• Decision rights under constraint were undefined
• Supplier concentration amplified downside risk
• Executive attention was absorbed by hiring and expansion not system design

Leadership felt they “weren’t getting enough out of the ERP,” but lacked a shared definition of:

• What decisions the ERP should support
• Where judgment needed to override system logic
• How planning, operations, and commercial teams should coordinate

The system wasn’t broken. It was being asked to do the wrong job.

‍

The Expensive Misdiagnosis

From a systems perspective, the Director of Supply Chain hire would lock in failure.

The role would have carried responsibility for outcomes without authority to:

• Redesign governance
• Change ERP logic
• Influence footprint or capacity decisions
• Resolve cross-functional tradeoffs

Any hire would have absorbed accountability while structural risk compounded quietly just as demand inevitably slowed.

This wasn’t a talent issue. It was a structural inevitability.

‍

Future Risk

The Risk No One Was Modeling: Life After the Boom

Every boom ends.

Because decisions were being made for peak demand, the company was drifting toward:

• Permanent headcount that couldn’t contract
• Fixed production footprint expansion
• Margin compression during normalization
• Layoffs and forced downsizing
• Costly write-downs and operational whiplash

What was missing was forward-looking design.

‍

What Pendel Reframed

Pendel shifted the conversation from: “How do we keep up?”

to: “What decisions are we locking in  and how do they behave when growth slows?”

Instead of irreversible commitments, Pendel surfaced scalable alternatives:

• Variable capacity via subcontracting and outsourcing
• Fractional or interim leadership instead of permanent hires
• ERP augmentation instead of replacement
• Temporary transformation resources instead of organizational bloat

These preserved upside during the boom without hard-coding failure into the slowdown.

‍

Why a Transformation Engine Was Required

A critical diagnostic insight emerged:

You cannot run the business and redesign the business with the same bandwidth.

Expecting teams already overwhelmed by day-to-day execution to also lead transformation guarantees failure.

Pendel recommended a dedicated transformation engine either:

• An internal Transformation / Continuous Improvement function, or
• An external partner with authority, focus, and air cover

Without this separation, transformation remains a side project and side projects die first.

‍

The Value of the Diagnostic

This engagement did not generate immediate P&L savings.

It prevented expensive, irreversible mistakes.

Organizational Consequence Avoided

By diagnosing before committing, the company avoided:

• Failed senior hire: $250K–$400K
• Mis-scoped ERP initiative: $500K–$2M
• Boom-era headcount & footprint locked in: $1M–$3M+
• Layoffs, write-downs, and morale damage during slowdown

Estimated downside exposure avoided:

$3M–$8M+ (scenario-based, conservative range)

The most valuable dollars never show up as savings because the mistake was never made.

‍

The Pendel Point of View

Hypergrowth is temporary. The decisions you lock in during the boom are not.

Pendel exists to provide institutional clarity under pressure so leadership teams govern growth instead of reacting to it.