RGM is a commercial execution system — where contracts, TPM configuration, ERP postings, and settlement must tell the same story.
Most RGM programs don't fail because the software is bad. They fail because the commercial logic, operating model, and incentives around that software are broken. The failure pattern is consistent: contract → TPM configuration → ERP objects → sales record → settlement. Something breaks at a translation layer, and the P&L never sees what was negotiated.
I engage across the full RGM cycle — from planning and pre-assessment through deployment, adoption, and post-go-live stabilization — so the system closes the loop between commercial intent and financial outcome. I come from the finance side first. That means I interrogate whether the system logic actually reflects the commercial agreement, not just whether the platform is configured correctly.
THE CONTRACT-TO-CASH GAUNTLET
The contract-to-cash cycle starts before an order is placed. It begins the moment commercial intent is born — and it runs through ten critical handoffs before net revenue is recognized. Each handoff is a potential breakage point.
Contract & Pricing Setup
Commercial agreement executed. Intent is set. Then terms are translated into system configuration — pricing conditions, allocation logic, promotional mechanics. This is the birthplace of margin leakage: discrepancies between negotiated terms and system logic surface here and compound downstream.
Order, Fulfillment & Billing
Order management, logistics, and the first financial document the customer sees. Inventory movements trigger cost flows. Invoicing complexity — promotional mechanics vs. ERP reality — creates the conditions for compliance deductions, short payments, and accrual distortion.
Trade Spend & Collections
Promotional programs execute. If deal logic is flawed, this is where P&L distortion becomes massive. Payment terms clock starts. Aging managed. The difference between expected and actual margin begins to crystallize.
Deductions, Settlement & Recognition
The single largest source of cash leakage in the cycle. Customers deduct for promotions, damages, and compliance failures. Settlement accuracy determines whether the commercial ledger reconciles to the financial ledger. Net revenue is recognized — and the Gross-to-Net waterfall either holds or it doesn't.
RGM only works when all ten handoffs are governed. That's the operating model I design, fix, and validate — with O2C integrity as the continuous measure.
THE THREE ALIGNMENT FAILURES
Every broken RGM deployment I've encountered traces back to one or more of three root causes. They are rarely software problems. They are almost always commercial logic, systems integration, or incentive problems.
Commercial Logic
The financial, operational, and structural rules the business must execute — and whether they are correctly encoded in the platform. Purchase agreements, pricing nuances, promotional mechanics, deal eligibility, accrual timing, and Gross-to-Net waterfall integrity. When commercial logic is wrong, everything downstream is wrong.
Systems Integration
The digital architecture that must execute commercial rules flawlessly — ERP pricing condition architecture, TPM/RGM to ERP translation layers, master data dependencies, O2C handoff points, EDI alignment, SIT/UAT coverage of commercial edge cases, and data latency between planning and execution.
Human Incentives
The structural motivations that determine whether people adopt the systems or actively bypass them. Vendor deployment incentives vs. client ROI. Sales volume targets vs. margin guardrails. IT project completion vs. adoption quality. Internal politics overriding governance design. Consultant incentives misaligned with BAU stability.
The Diagnostic Frame
When I assess a broken or stalling deployment, I work through all three layers in sequence. A platform problem that looks like a configuration error is often a commercial logic problem. A commercial logic problem that looks like a user adoption failure is often an incentive problem. Fixing the wrong layer is how expensive rework spirals start.
- Is the commercial logic correctly encoded — or was it never validated against the actual agreements?
- Is the integration architecture capable of executing those rules without manual intervention?
- Do the incentives in the room — vendor, client, IT, Sales, Finance — all point toward the same outcome?
TRADE GOVERNANCE ARCHITECTURE
Strategy without enforcement becomes leakage. The trade operating system — funding logic, channel rules, inventory economics, and compliance consequences — has to be built deliberately, or it gets built by accident under pressure by people filling gaps.
The Enforcement Layer
I build the governance infrastructure that makes commercial execution durable beyond the deployment project:
- Trade spend governance — funding rules, accrual discipline, dispute windows, settlement controls
- Balance-sheet aware trade — inventory risk allocation, lifecycle rules, channel economics
- Channel integrity — anti-diversion controls, channel conflict management, compliance consequences
- Decision rights design — who owns which decisions, under what conditions, with what accountability
- Operating model alignment — vendor, client, IT, Finance, and Sales all working from the same governance framework
WHERE I ENGAGE
I work with CPG manufacturers, RGM and TPM platform vendors, consulting firms, and PE-backed transformations — wherever the gap between commercial intent and financial outcome needs to be closed.
Vendors & SaaS Platforms
Pre-engagement readiness, solution design validation, UAT governance, post-go-live stabilization, and client advisory. I bring the client-side perspective — the finance and commercial logic layer — that most advisory teams lack.
CPG Manufacturers
Platform selection, deployment governance, rescue and remediation, and ongoing trade governance architecture. Independent of any vendor — no platform relationship to protect, no implementation revenue at stake.
Private Equity & Consulting
Functional due diligence on RGM/TPM platform acquisitions and commercial transformation investments. Independent assessment of platform capability, deployment quality, and commercial execution risk.