Trust issues from poor system integration

A big 4 consulting firm implemented ERP which caused a major business disruption for a client   Top level partners in top notch suits made best promises in a beautifully crafted presentation.   The client got excited. Deal signed.   I joined the party at the SIT phase. Which could not complete.   The integration between ERP, WMS and boundary systems was failing.   SIT lasted for 3 more months. Go live data had to be pushed. But the integration still did not work.   The burn rate was insane.   Eventually the leadership decided to make it live and forced half-baked solution.   Yay! Everyone was happy until they realized what a sh*t show they were in.   Right after go live the planners and supply chain operations realized that the stock on hand in ERP, WMS, their custom system and on the shelf were all different.   They had to call the warehouse to make sure they had the right quantity of equipment.   The result: ·      All the departments started overordering to cover up for their projects ·      2 million dollar sales were lost. No stock. Couldn’t deliver ·      Inventory across the supply chain grew by $20M ·      It took 18 months to stabilize the system   Why did that happen? 1.      The vendor recently bought the WMS solution and did not yet build native integration. 2.      Poor integration between the systems. Transactions were stuck due to errors. 3.      Terrible user experience. Warehouse workers could not perform their role in a system and circumvented the restrictions. 4.      Lack of training and end user support   Want to avoid this costly mistake? Here’s what you should consider. ·      ERP can look great on a slide deck but may not necessarily fit your business ·      ERP can fit your business but not your boundary systems ·      An implementation partner can have a big brand name, but one integration architect can screw the whole thing ·      Be careful with newly purchased solutions by the vendor. They might not be integrated into their ERP yet.   In summary:   Don’t trust ERP fairy tales.   Do your due diligence.   #TheERPGuy

The Website Consent Problem: Too Many Tools, Too Little Harmony Websites rely on various third-party tools like analytics platforms, ad managers, and tag managers. While these tools are essential for functionality, each has unique privacy settings. The real challenge is ensuring they work together to honor user consent. When integration fails, consent flows break, leading to compliance risks and loss of trust. Websites often use over 20 different types of tools. Key categories of website tools: 1. Analytics tools Google Analytics and Adobe Analytics track user behavior and performance. They rely on settings like Google Consent Mode to operate compliantly. Without proper integration, they may collect data before consent. 2. Ad management platforms Prebid.js and Google Ad Manager manage ad delivery. They need frameworks like IAB TCF strings to serve personalized ads only with user consent. Misconfigurations can lead to tracking and legal risks. 3. Tag management systems (TMS) Google Tag Manager and Tealium control when other tools are deployed. The CMP (Consent Management Platform) must load first to capture consent preferences. Without proper setup, tools may fire prematurely. 4. Heatmaps and session recording tools Hotjar and FullStory track user interactions to improve experience. These tools collect sensitive data and should operate only with explicit consent. Poor configurations can result in privacy issues. Why honoring consent is a challenge? - Fragmented ecosystem Most tools operate in silos, making it hard to create a unified consent flow. Without integration, tools don’t respect shared consent signals. - Regulatory complexity Privacy laws vary across regions, requiring different approaches for compliance (e.g., opt-in vs. opt-out). Configuring tools to meet global regulations adds complexity. - Lack of real-time monitoring Consent flows change as tools are updated or replaced. Without regular monitoring, settings can become outdated, leading to unauthorized data collection. - Misaligned priorities Revenue goals often take precedence over compliance. This results in shortcuts like firing tracking scripts before consent is obtained, risking penalties and user trust. What should Privacy Teams do? 1. Audit your website List all third-party tools and document their data flows. 2. Understand privacy settings Review each tool’s privacy settings and integration with the CMP. 3. Fix tag management systems Ensure the CMP loads first to capture user consent before other tags fire. 4. Verify CMP integration Confirm the CMP communicates consent signals to all tools for consistency. 5. Automate, automate, automate Manual consent flow monitoring is time-consuming and prone to errors. Work with tech teams to automate consent checks or use vendors specializing in consent monitoring automation. This will help in catching issues early on. #Privacy pros, How are you auditing your website’s tools and #consent flows?

I just lived through a masterclass in what NOT to do with patient experience technology. Left knee issue. Called orthopedics. Made appointment. Simple, right? Portal says: Hip problem. Me: "I never mentioned my hip." Fills out portal anyway. Reminder text: Fill out paperwork Me: "I did that already" Reminder text: Fill out paperwork Me: "I DID THAT ALREADY!" Second visit, both knees affected. Portal says: Ankle problem. Reminder text: Fill out paperwork Me: "This is madness." Third appointment: Front desk schedules me. Day of? No appointment exists. "Financial issue" they say. Transfer me around. Finally rescheduled. Get another portal link. Why? Here's what this experience reveals about healthcare technology: 🔴 Systems don't talk to each other The phone conversation, the portal, and the front desk are operating in parallel universes. Data isn't flowing—it's fragmenting. 🔴 Volume over experience The moment I walked in, I knew: this place is built for throughput, not trust. And patients feel it immediately. 🔴 Technology without strategy Having a patient portal doesn't improve experience if it creates more confusion than clarity. Technology should reduce friction, not add it. 🔴 No one owns the patient journey From scheduling to billing to reminders, every touchpoint felt disconnected. When systems fail, patients bear the burden. The real cost? I almost didn't come back. And I'm someone who studies this for a living. If you need help seeing the entire picture end-to-end, give me a call. Healthcare leaders: Your patient portal isn't a checkbox. It's a promise. If the data is wrong, the trust is broken. What patient experience failures have you witnessed that could have been prevented with better systems integration? #PatientExperience #HealthcareIT #DigitalHealth #HealthTech

I’ve seen it again and again in automotive projects. Unit tests pass. System tests fail. And no one knows what happened in between. There are no integration steps. No interface validation. No structured build-up from modules to behavior. But this isn’t just a tooling issue. It’s architectural. It’s cultural. It’s systemic. And still… – Automotive SPICE expects integration proof. – ISO 26262 requires composition validation. – Math shows it reduces risk. But too often, teams skip it. Why? Because all they see is overhead. Not the shrinking of the state space. Not the earlier detection of interaction faults. Not the clarity gained from staged behavior. ⸻ We don’t lack standards. We lack structural thinking. Testing is not a jump. It’s a build-up. From trusted parts to trusted connections to trusted systems. This requires: – staged integration – interface-focused testing – validation under real constraints – and a mindset that stops treating assembly as proof Otherwise, the system isn’t tested. It’s just stitched together. Welcome to the fix. #MrBrokenTesting #IntegrationBlindness #TestingStrategy #AutomotiveSPICE #ISO26262 #TestArchitecture

Are you slapping new processes on old problems? Because if you are—here’s why it’s not working. You can automate the workflow. You can build a shiny new system. You can roll out a new SOP and hold another team-wide training. But if the real issue is cultural, behavioral, or relational— No new process will fix it. It’ll just cover it up for a little while. Process should support people, not replace awareness. Most operational friction doesn’t come from the system. It comes from things like: -Misalignment -Avoided conflict -Unclear priorities -Lack of ownership -Unspoken tension between teams You know what happens when you ignore that and just throw a new tool at it? It works for 30 days… until the cracks start to show again. Here’s how to break that cycle: 1. Diagnose before you deploy. Ask: “Is this a process issue—or a trust issue in disguise?” Get honest before getting efficient. 2. Listen to the people who use the process every day. If your frontline team hates the system, no amount of leadership enthusiasm will fix it. 3. Stop over-engineering around poor communication. If teams don’t talk, no dashboard will save you. Fix the relationship before the reporting. 4. Measure outcomes, not just adherence. Just because everyone uses the process doesn’t mean it’s working. Look at results, not checkboxes. 5. Be willing to burn down what no longer serves the mission. Legacy systems are fine—until they’re not. Don’t be precious about broken things. Because at the end of the day, no process is a substitute for alignment, trust, and leadership clarity. Build the culture first. Then build the system that supports it.

Your customers can feel your internal chaos. When your systems are fragmented, the first people to notice are your customers. They receive inconsistent information, suffer from service delays, and get asked for the same details multiple times. In my experience, this is one of the fastest ways to lose trust and business. The truth is, poor data quality leads to unreliable insights and hesitant decisions internally, but it creates a terrible experience externally. And the stakes are high. 84% of customers will switch to a competitor after just one poor experience. When it costs 3.5 times more to acquire a new customer than to keep an existing one, you can't afford to get this wrong. This isn't an IT problem; it's a strategic business problem. Getting the architecture right with scalable systems and ensuring clean, consistent data isn't just about efficiency; it's about survival. We explore this connection between internal systems and customer loyalty in our new guide. When was the last time a customer had to tell you something that your systems should have already known? #CustomerExperience #DataQuality #CX

Programmability is easy. Trust at scale is hard. And if we don’t get the second one right, the first one will just fail faster. Most of the industry talks about tokenization as if it’s the finish line. It’s not. The hard part is coordinating identity, rules and risk across networks. That’s the trust layer and without it, tokenization is just a faster way to fail. We’ve seen this movie before. In aviation’s golden age, faster planes didn’t make flying safer. Pilots still needed air traffic control and someone to make sure everyone was operating from the same map, following the same rules and avoiding mid-air collisions. Finance is no different.Without an agreed “air traffic control” layer, faster settlement and programmable money just increase the speed of errors, fraud, and disputes:    •   Fraud moves at light speed—instant payments clear before banks can coordinate a stop.    •   Cross-border settlements go out of sync when different ledgers follow different rules, creating instant disputes.    •   Smart contracts execute flawlessly on one network but fail compliance checks on another, locking assets in limbo. Speed without coordination doesn’t just fail it fails faster. Here’s where trust breaks down without coordination: 🔍 Identity — Who’s actually on the other side of the transaction? 📜 Rules — Are we following the same compliance and settlement protocols? ⚠️ Risk — Who carries liability when something goes wrong? Solving that coordination problem means building trust that isn’t hard-wired for one-to-one connections. It has to be modular and composable. That means networks can plug into each other, build on each other’s capabilities, and coordinate without custom wiring for every connection. But composability cuts both ways. Without a shared trust layer, connecting systems quickly can also connect their vulnerabilities. The goal isn’t just faster infrastructure. It’s better coordination without concentration. Get that wrong, and we end up with a “tech-n-oligarchy” that looks decentralized on the surface but reinforces old power dynamics underneath. Get it right, and we create open, transparent trust standards that make composability safe—scaling trust, not just technology. A real trust layer would: 1. Anchor every transaction to verified, portable identity. 2. Embed rules so compliance travels with the asset. 3. Share risk frameworks so disputes resolve automatically. 4. Orchestrate actions across ledgers, networks, and participants. Without this, “programmable finance” is just speed without safety. With it, we can build a once-in-a-generation public infrastructure for global finance. So here’s the question: Who’s going to be the ATC for digital finance? And will the trust layer be open, or just another closed system?

If you’re still starting your Zero Trust strategy with “What should we buy?” — this one's for you. Most security teams aren’t failing because they lack tools. They’re failing because those tools don’t work together. We’ve been told to “build Zero Trust” by layering on IAM, EDR, DLP, segmentation, dashboards... But we’re just stacking products instead of solving problems. TL;DR: 📌 You don’t need more tools—you need them to work together. 📌 Zero Trust only works when context flows across systems—not when it’s trapped in silos. 📌 Too many Zero Trust programs are built like a box of mismatched puzzle pieces. 📌 It looks complete… but nothing fits. 📌 Real-world examples of integration gaps 📌 Actionable ways to connect identity, device, network, and data signals 😆 A visual metaphor I wish I had thought of earlier #ZeroTrust #Cybersecurity #SecurityLeadership #IntegrationMatters #NIST #ArchitectureOverTools #ZTjourney #ZeroTrustJourney

The Airbus A380 disaster cost €6 billion. And the root cause wasn’t aeronautical engineering. It was data architecture and communication.   Sound familiar?   Every HR and payroll professional knows this pain: without clear data structures and consistent communication, even the best teams are set up to fail.   Two world-class engineering teams. 🇫🇷 France: CATIA v4 🇩🇪 Germany: CATIA v5   The systems couldn’t talk to each other. Design files didn’t align. Parts didn’t fit. Delays piled up.   Great teams. Broken architecture. A preventable failure that escalated to a billion-euro scale.   The same dynamic plays out in payroll. When systems can’t integrate across borders: → Rules conflict → Data mismatches → Compliance deadlines slip And trust collapses.   That’s why payroll harmonization isn’t an HR detail. It’s enterprise risk management. Handled well, it safeguards trust and business continuity. Handled poorly, it undermines both.   The Lesson: Great teams + bad data architecture = billion-dollar disasters. In planes. And in payroll.   Executives who ignore this risk don’t save costs. They inherit them. ----- #Riskmanagement #HR #Finance

Some data headaches are really just trust issues in disguise. Let me explain: I once met with a medical device company’s President who complained endlessly about their on-prem ETL failures and nightly data fires. On the surface, it was a purely technical problem - broken scripts, crashing servers, and no backup plan. But as I asked more questions, I realized the true pain was deeper... Nobody trusted the numbers. Reports conflicted, definitions varied, and decisions were stalled or based on gut feel. In short, they had no data management strategy. Every stakeholder boiled their frustrations down to “broken servers,” when the real issue was the foundation. Helping the president of the company see this issue helped us close the deal. So, here’s the takeaway... Before you dive into code fixes, pause and ask: Do people actually trust these numbers? If they don’t, no amount of faster queries will solve the real problem. Build trust by: 1. Defining consistent metrics and ownership 2. Establishing lightweight data governance (even a small team can make a big difference) 3. Validating data end-to-end to ensure accuracy Fix the foundation first, and the rest will follow. ♻️ Share if you know a data leader who needs to address the trust gap. Follow me for more on building data strategies that drive real business impact.