IT projects rarely die of technology. They die of unmanaged vendors, decisions that wait weeks for an owner, and status reports that describe a project that no longer exists. IT project management services exist to put structure around exactly that: a PMO that owns the plan, controls the vendors, and tells the sponsor the truth early enough to act on it.
We run and rescue technology projects in Saudi Arabia - ERP implementations above all - as a party independent of the implementing vendor, which is precisely what makes vendor control possible. How we run engagements in general is set out on how we work.
A major implementation is starting and the vendor is about to manage itself. Milestones keep moving and nobody can say which change caused which slip. Steering meetings review slides instead of decisions. Or a project is already in trouble and the honest status is unknown - which is a recovery engagement, and sooner is materially cheaper than later.
A small project with one internal team and no vendor needs a capable lead, not a PMO. If the organization has a working PMO and the gap is one skill, that is staff augmentation. And if scope is still undecided, you need the decision made first - governance cannot manage a project that has not chosen what it is.
What outcome was this project funded to deliver, who owns that outcome, and what does done mean in their words? Recovery engagements start the same way - against the original intent, not the current slide deck.
An honest baseline: real progress versus reported progress, contract and vendor obligations versus behaviour, decision backlog, and the risks that are being lived with rather than managed. Independence from the delivery vendor is what makes this read honest.
A written delivery or recovery plan: governance structure, decision rights, vendor control points, and the milestones that will actually be tracked - with what we recommend stopping, which is usually the hard part.
We run the plan: PMO cadence, vendor management against contract, risk and change control that changes behaviour rather than filling a register, and sponsor reporting that says the uncomfortable thing while it is still cheap to fix.
After go-live: benefits tracking against the funded outcome, lessons into your own PMO's standards, and - where wanted - a standing governance role across the portfolio rather than one project.
A delivery or recovery baseline; a governance and PMO design with decision rights; the running PMO itself - plans, risk and change control, vendor management, sponsor reporting; and a close-out that leaves your organization able to repeat what worked.
Setup and baseline are quick; the engagement then follows the project's own duration. The consultation produces a dated plan for your project rather than a generic promise - project management that invents its own schedule would be a poor advertisement.
A fixed-scope setup or recovery baseline; ongoing PMO delivery priced by governance scope; and portfolio-level advisory. No published rate card - price follows the written governance scope, and the baseline is deliberately separable from the run.
Sponsors and CIOs in Saudi Arabia funding major technology programmes - ERP implementations first among them (see ERP consulting), core-system replacements, and multi-vendor integrations - and any leadership team holding a project whose reported status they no longer believe.
Published results are attributable results: named client, stated baseline, written consent. We do not publish anonymous recovery statistics. Named references are offered during evaluation.
PMO setup and an honest baseline come first and come quickly; after that the engagement tracks the project it governs. The dated plan from the consultation is the answer for your case.
There is no licence here - the cost is the governance effort, and the number that matters is what it protects: the programme budget exposed to vendor slip, rework and delay. The baseline states both so the sponsor can judge the insurance against the risk.
Governance itself carries few residency questions, but the projects we govern do - so compliance obligations are tracked as first-class delivery risks, mapped to the authority that supervises you, with the vendor's compliance commitments managed as contract obligations rather than assumptions.
The baseline states them: strengthen your internal PMO, augment one role, let the vendor self-manage with tighter contract gates, or stop the project. Each is scored for your situation - recommending ourselves is not the default outcome.
Yes - we govern through whatever project tooling and reporting stack you already run, and alongside your existing PMO where one exists. Broader operating-model questions route to business management consulting.
A number stands in this section only when a named client consents to stand behind it, baseline included. None are published today - the discipline is the credential.
Clients are named only with written agreement. Named references relevant to your programme type are shared during evaluation, with consent.
Recovery and delivery case material is shared by name during evaluation under the same consent rule - anonymised war stories are not evidence.
Maintained on the partners page, the single source of truth. Our independence from implementing vendors is the load-bearing credential in this service: we manage vendors because we are not one of them on your project.
How we work - our engagement model end to end. ERP consulting - the programmes most often under this governance. Business management consulting - when the operating model, not the project, is the problem.
Bring the last two status reports and the milestone everyone is worried about. Book a decision session and we will tell you plainly whether this is a setup, a recovery, or a project that needs a harder decision than governance can supply.