The Zero-Disruption Playbook: 6 Principles to Keep A Transformation Initiative on Track

To stay on target for a critical ERP makeover, Angela Maragkopoulou, the chief information and digital officer for Sunlight Group Energy Storage Systems, pursued a pragmatic strategy that emphasized clear goals, a focus on outcomes, and a recognition that the way people work must be part of executives’ calculus.

When our company decided to implement SAP S4/HANA ERP, simplified data models, and embedded analytics, the business case was evident. Replacing our legacy ERP solution (partially SAP, which would no longer be supported in 2027, and partially another system) with one whose features would make financial and operational reporting instantaneous would support intuitive, mobile, and role-based user experiences; integrate seamlessly with SAP’s cloud ecosystem of software; and limit compliance, integration, and innovation gaps.

The plan was to implement 11 modules (including sales and distribution, production planning, materials management, and finance and controlling) with mega-factories in Greece, Germany, and the U.S., each with a different operational focus (lead acid cells production, lithium assembly, components production and recycling lines). The coordinated migration would ensure process and data consistency, allow for a unified cutover, reduce interface complexity, and enable true end-to-end process standardization.

The board's mandate was also clear: Zero disruption to production. Zero impact on shipping. Zero delays in invoicing. Athens, Greece-headquartered Sunlight Group, which produces a variety of lead-acid and lithium-ion batteries for industrial applications as well as energy storage systems (ESS) for renewable energy and commercial use, runs its global operations intensively. A single day of production downtime costs hundreds of thousands of euros. Shipping delays cascade to customers worldwide. Invoicing errors damage decades-old relationships.

As anyone who’s worked in manufacturing knows, "zero disruption" sounds impossible. And honestly? It nearly was.

Ultimately, we did it—achieving a 30% boost in product lifecycle efficiency, a 40% increase in production efficiency, and zero disruption. It wasn't smooth. In fact, it was the most difficult leadership challenge in my 25-year career.

But the lessons we learned and the principles we developed and applied can help any CIO leading a transformation when failure isn't an option.

Zero Disruption ≠ Zero Problems

Achieving zero disruption doesn’t mean everything goes according to plan. Far from it. Rather,  it’s about building migration strategies that can recover quickly when things go wrong.

In reality, there were several crises during the 12-month project, from significant data migration issues during early testing to change resistance on the production floor. In each instance, we applied a crisis detection and recovery framework that served us well:

• Detect fast: We were able to identify issues quickly thanks to real-time monitoring, daily standups, and direct lines of communication to the production floor.
• Decide faster: We could make calls on the fly, like changes in business processes or adding production, finance or IT staff for a limited period to address an issue, thanks to pre-authorizing decision-making authority at every level. A "decision rights matrix" laid out who could decide what and when, including empowering module leads to make decisions without escalation.
• Solve fastest: Once a decision was made, we could execute quickly thanks to cross-functional, fast-response teams, not committee meetings.

The Six Principles That Kept Us On Track

Give the scope and speed of the transformation, there were many days when things felt overwhelming. I had developed a playbook, hard won through years of difficult B2B transformations, and shared it with the team when I took on the project. Establishing six principles to guide the effort was key.

1. Clarity Over Consensus
   In a crisis, clear direction beats democratic decision-making. Consensus takes time, a scarce resource during transformation. For big decisions, I made the final call—but only after hearing from people closest to the problem on a daily basis. This requires staying close to the implementation team.
   
   When we discovered our data migration strategy had a fatal flaw shortly  before go-live, we had three options. Spend 10% more on project capital expenditures and delay the cut-over  by three weeks in order to establish data integrity. Stick to the go-live date, using manual workarounds, which could risk data integrity. Reduce the scope of the project, delaying the launch of parts of the modules.
   
   I decided to spend the money and take the extra time. Data integrity is non-negotiable in our business. A three-week delay we could recover from; data corruption would have been irreparable. Manual workarounds would create technical debt that could costs us much more long-term.
   
   I didn’t make the decision in a vacuum. I conferred with those closest to the problem—our project and production teams, not our consultants. And I calculated the total cost of failure, not just on the budget, but in terms of customer trust. I presented the board with a solution rather than the problem telling them what I recommended and why and taking ownership for the decision and the outcome.
   
   
2. Transparency Over Optimism
   During a transformation, it’s not a matter of “if” problems will happen, but “when”. And when they do, it’s vital to tell the truth, even when it's uncomfortable. Surprises destroy trust; transparency builds it.
   
   There can certainly be pressure on IT leaders to present the organization with progress, particularly when so much is on the line. But that approach can backfire, leading to the typical “watermelon project” problem, where the KPIs are green when, in fact, the project is falling apart. The reality always reveals itself eventually, resulting in budget or timeline overruns.  
   
   We shared monthly (and—closer to go live—weekly) updates with the executive team and the board, including what was working and what wasn’t, in equal measure. We were open, for example, when we had to spend a significant amount more to meet a timeline. 
   
   
3. Outcomes Over Outputs
   On paper, our mission was to implement 11 modules across three production facilities in twelve months. But simply rolling out new systems has little worth on its own. Success is defined by delivering business value.
   
   Business value requires full adoption and acceptance by users and the integration of new processes and ways or working. Boards care about business impact, not IT achievements. We measured our impact in production efficiency— such as the consolidation of production lines, improved procurement decision, or increased process automation—not project milestones. We began to see the benefits almost immediately thanks to the smooth migration.
   
   
4. Adaptation Over Adherence
   Rigidity kills complex projects; flexibility saves them. While a project plan is essential—particularly with an effort of this size and scope—it should be treated as a guide, not a rulebook.
   
   Ultimately, we changed the plan seven times in 18 months—and that's okay. 
   For example, a variant configurator (which automates order entry based on customer requirements) product failed user acceptance testing during go-live weekend. We decided to delay go-live by 48 hours rather than forcing the launch with manual workarounds that would have increased production times and compromised our ability to meet contractual agreements.
   
   Minimizing disruption sometimes means saying no to arbitrary deadlines. Delaying a launch by two days in order to do have business owners and IT redesign the variant configurator allowed us to maintain the integrity of our order entry system.
   
   
5. People Over Process
   Technology should serve people, not the other way around. When process and people conflict, I choose people every time. During this initiative, we redesigned workflows based on how people actually work, not how the system wanted them to work.
   
   Sometimes, we had to learn this the hard way. The production floor teams rejected new workflows for quality management, production planning, and warehouse management, saying they were "too complicated". So, we launched a rapid redesign with shop floor supervisors—rather than IT—leading the effort. This took more time, but it was an investment in outcomes.
   
   User adoption isn't a training issue; it’s a design problem. Integrating users into the system design phase prevents costly rework later on.
   
   
6. Sustainability over speed
   Our team members, consultants, vendors, and key stakeholders were working long hours. By month six, we were exhausted. And we learned a lot about what did and didn’t work when it comes to enduring a high-stakes, high-speed transformation.
   
   A "push through" mentality only led to burnout and careless mistakes. Motivational speeches also were largely worthless. The team needed support—flexible working hours, a robust PMO—not inspiration. Adding more people also didn’t help; expanding the team increased complexity, not capacity
   
   What did work was creating an environment of psychological safety. Every week, we held "what's not working" sessions for problem-solving rather than laying blame. We celebrated not just successes, but failures caught early. And we made it OK to stop and say, "I don't know," or "I need help."
   
   We also prioritized strategic recovery time, enforcing mandatory time off after major milestones and rotating team members through high-stress roles. We also made sure there was a backup for every critical role. 
   
   These are stressful projects. People work during vacations and holidays. They miss family events. They need to be appreciated and rewarded during and after. We had zero attrition. And the team emerged from the project stronger, not broken. Resilience isn't about working harder. It's about establishing systems that allow people to work sustainably under pressure.

Continuing the Learning After Launch

Six months post-implementation, I asked my team: "Would you do it again?" The answer I got was, “Yes. But differently.”

We’d start with smaller scope, prove the model, and then scale. We would invest more in change management upfront. And we’d build in more recovery time for the team.
There were some things we did right, too. The principles we established performed under pressure. distributed decision-making served us well. And transparency was invaluable; trust, in these scenarios, is everything.

Zero disruption isn't about perfect execution. It's about building organizations that can solve problems faster than they create them. And that's not a technology challenge; it's a leadership one.