ERP Development Company in Atlanta

Scope-tied ranges only. A focused extension project on an ERP the client already owns, meaning a handful of custom modules, two or three integrations and a reporting layer, typically runs USD 60,000 to 175,000 over ten to sixteen weeks. A single-entity implementation or replacement for a mid-market distributor or manufacturer, including chart of accounts design, master data cleanup, migration, EDI onboarding for the top trading partners, two mock cutovers and training, typically runs USD 250,000 to 750,000. A multi-site or multi-entity program with plant-floor integration, warehouse execution, consolidated reporting and a phased rollout across locations runs USD 750,000 to 2.5 million and up, and at that size the software licensing usually exceeds our fee. Remediation of a failed go-live is the hardest to bound and typically starts around USD 150,000 because the first month is diagnosis. The variable that moves an ERP quote most is the condition of your master data, so we sample the item master, bills of material and vendor records during estimation rather than finding out what state they are in after the contract is signed. We quote fixed fee per phase against a signed statement of work, and we separate license, implementation and data remediation on the estimate so the numbers are legible.

By transaction shape and by what the business will actually maintain. If you are a multinational with statutory reporting in several countries, intercompany complexity and a large treasury function, SAP S/4HANA or Oracle Fusion Cloud ERP is the honest answer and the licensing cost is the price of that reach. If you are a single-country manufacturer or distributor between roughly 50 million and 1 billion dollars in revenue and your organization already runs on Microsoft, Dynamics 365 Finance and Supply Chain Management usually wins because your admins can maintain it and Power Platform gives you a supported extension path. Infor CloudSuite and Epicor Kinetic are strong where industry-specific process manufacturing or discrete shop-floor logic is the core need and you want less configuration work. Acumatica fits project-based construction and distribution well. NetSuite fits distributors, studios and services firms whose complexity is financial rather than operational. Odoo is defensible where you want the source and have engineers to own it. What we will not do is recommend the platform whose consulting practice pays best. The question we ask first is which system your controller and your plant IT lead can still run in five years without us.

It changes where your data can live and who can touch it. The CMMC Program final rule was published in the Federal Register on 15 October 2024 at 89 FR 83092 and took effect 16 December 2024. The acquisition side followed: the DFARS rule implementing CMMC in contracts, DFARS Case 2019-D041, was published 10 September 2025 at 90 FR 43560 and took effect 10 November 2025, which is what puts the requirement into new solicitations. If your ERP stores or processes Controlled Unclassified Information, and for most Lockheed Martin Marietta or Warner Robins suppliers it does through drawings, specifications, quantities and delivery schedules, then that ERP is in your assessment scope and must meet the NIST SP 800-171 control set at CMMC Level 2. Practically, this drives three decisions early. First, whether CUI lives in the ERP at all or in a segregated enclave with the ERP holding only non-CUI references. Second, whether the hosting region and the cloud service provider offering meet the required protections. Third, who administers the system, because access control and personnel screening are assessed. We design to keep assessment scope as small as defensibly possible, since every additional system in scope is additional cost at every reassessment.

Not without authorization, and we will tell you that before the statement of work rather than after. ITAR at 22 CFR Parts 120 through 130 treats release of controlled technical data to a foreign person as an export, including release inside the United States, and that includes a database administrator in another country reading a table that contains it. Codazz delivers from Edmonton, Canada and Chandigarh, India. Our engineers are not US persons by default. So on any engagement involving a defense supplier we run an export control screen in discovery and split the work. Workstreams that touch ITAR technical data are either performed by the client's own cleared or US-person staff with us providing design, documentation and code review of non-controlled artifacts, or they are scoped out entirely. Workstreams that do not touch controlled data, which is usually the majority of an ERP program including finance, procurement of commercial items, HR and general reporting, proceed normally. The same logic applies to CUI under CMMC and to EAR-controlled items at 15 CFR Parts 730 to 774. Vendors who wave this away are creating a violation that lands on your registration, not theirs. We would rather lose the workstream than create that exposure.

By refusing to do a single big-bang cutover unless the business genuinely has no alternative. Our default is phased by site, by legal entity or by module, with the legacy system kept readable for at least two closing cycles. Before go-live we run two full mock cutovers against production-scale data, each timed to the minute, each ending in a general ledger reconciliation and a physical inventory count against system quantities. Each mock has a defined abort criterion and we have aborted mocks, which is the point of running them. The cutover plan itself is a task-level runbook with owners, durations, dependencies and a hard go or no-go checkpoint before the point of no return. Open orders, in-transit inventory, partially received purchase orders and work in process are the four categories that cause most cutover pain, and we build explicit reconciliation reports for each rather than trusting the migration tool. Trading partner EDI is cut over with a parallel period where both systems produce documents and we compare them before switching the partner. Finally we plan for degraded operation: a documented manual process for receiving and shipping that a supervisor can run for 24 hours without the ERP, printed and physically present at the dock.

By designing controls into the configuration rather than documenting them afterwards. For a public company in metro Atlanta, and there are many, the ERP is the primary system of record for internal control over financial reporting under Sarbanes-Oxley section 404. That means segregation of duties enforced in role design rather than in policy, so the person who creates a vendor cannot also approve a payment to it, and role conflicts are reported continuously rather than discovered at audit. It means change management with an auditable trail from ticket to code to approval to deployment, which is why we insist on source control and a real release pipeline even on platforms where clicking in production is technically possible. On revenue, ASC 606 fails most often at the performance obligation level: multi-element arrangements, variable consideration and contract modifications are where distributors and software-attached manufacturers get restated. We model those in the system, not in a spreadsheet bolted onto the close. ASC 842 lease accounting gets the same treatment. We also build the evidence artifacts auditors ask for as standard reports, including user access reviews, journal entry approval trails and interface reconciliation reports, so producing them takes an hour rather than a week.