Marunaka Industries Co., Ltd.
ManufacturingOR
Dashboard
Risk PXL 4.3

ERP go-live disrupts customer billing & delivery

Two rehearsals failed at inventory↔billing reconciliation; billing error rate sits at 2.1% vs 0.1% target. A forced March go-live risks mis-billing ~40% of paid accounts. 6–8 weeks of engineering needed.

NEURON ingested 312 items
Related risks:R2R5C1
Related signals:
Risk Score Breakdown
PXL Score
4.3↑
Probability80%
Impact100%
Goal
Cloud-ERP live without disrupting billing/delivery.
Change
Core system on-prem → cloud ERP.
Trigger
2 failed rehearsals + April promise.
Open items
Reconciliation fix; customer messaging.

Why this is a risk

  • Reconciliation unsolved across two rehearsals.
  • March deadline forces skipping test cycles.
  • Mis-billing breaches customer terms.
  • Sales promise diverges from engineering reality.

Blast Radius & Consequences

High

What this risk touches, and what breaks if it goes unaddressed.

Teams affected
3 (IS, Sales, Field service)
Customers affected
~40% of paid accounts
Expected delay
6–8 weeks
What's at stake
Fiscal-close commitment + key-account trust.
Worst case: Double or incorrect billing hits top-25 accounts during fiscal close, triggering disputes, churn, and restated revenue.
Consequences if unaddressed
  • Critical
    Mis-billing at fiscal close
    Reconciliation is unsolved across two rehearsals; a hard cutover risks double/incorrect billing to the top-25 accounts during close.
  • High
    Skipped test cycles
    The March deadline forces skipping reconciliation test cycles, pushing the 2.1% billing-error rate into production.
  • High
    Sales-promise divergence
    The April customer promise diverges from engineering reality, exposing key-account commitments that IS has not signed off.
  • Medium
    Vendor-contract exposure
    A rushed cutover interacts with open vendor-contract items (→C1/C3), adding legal and SLA exposure.
Cascading risks
3

Other risks this could trigger or worsen if unresolved.

  • WorsensR2 — Sales promise outruns engineering timelinePXL 3.8
  • TriggersR5 — Billing UI cannot represent reconciled statePXL 4
  • WorsensC1/C3 — Vendor contract terms unresolved at cutoverPXL 2.4

Recommended Solution

NEURON AI
Run a phased migration with billing reconciled first and rollback by default

Phased migration; reconcile billing first behind a flag; 90-day rollback; freeze the April customer promise pending IS sign-off.

  1. 1Replan to a phased go-live; reconcile billing behind a feature flag before any customer-facing cutover.
  2. 2Freeze the April customer promise pending IS sign-off, and issue corrected messaging to Daido Foods + 2 accounts.
  3. 3Run a reconciliation test plan until the error rate is under 0.1% on the top-25 accounts.
  4. 4Keep a 90-day rollback path with automatic fallback to the on-prem system on threshold breach.

Why this works

  • Reconciling billing behind a flag removes the highest-impact failure before customers ever see it.
  • A phased cutover mirrors the 2025 Q4 staged migration that shipped with no degradation.
  • Freezing the April promise aligns the customer commitment with engineering reality.
  • A 90-day rollback bounds the blast radius if reconciliation regresses in production.
Similar past cases2
ResolvedCore Platform
2025 Q4 staged cutover

Core system migrated in stages behind flags with automatic fallback; shipped with no billing degradation.

PXL 4PXL 1.1
ResolvedBilling
2025 Q3 cost spike → caching

A reconciliation cost spike was contained by a caching + batching layer, now the standard rollout pattern.

PXL 3.6PXL 1.1

Linked Board Items

3
Apr 26 · #erp-migration

@IS-lead: Second rehearsal failed reconciliation again — 2.1% of invoices don't match source. Not safe for a hard cutover.

Apr 28 · #sales

@AE: Already told Daido Foods we go live in April. Three more accounts are expecting the same date.

Apr 30 · exec

@Exec: Fiscal-close mandate stands — but I won't accept mis-billing the top-25. Find a path that protects billing first.