Enterprise architecture
Solution and integration architecture across SAP, Salesforce and AWS. Clean Core strategy, extensibility, API and event design — and the decisions that determine whether the landscape can still be upgraded in five years.
Enterprise Transformation Advisory
Architecture, judgment and delivery — governed end to end.
Solution architecture, independent quality assurance, specialized talent and Center of Excellence design for organizations running SAP at enterprise scale.
Talk to a principal architectWhere we sit
The large integrators build the programme. We make sure it is built right.
Most enterprise SAP programmes are delivered by global systems integrators — as they should be. What those programmes often lack is an independent technical voice: someone with no stake in the schedule, reviewing architecture, localization and Clean Core decisions before they become irreversible.
Armstrong's leadership spent two years inside SAP as RISE Cloud Architect and Advisor, performing exactly that function on customer programmes executed by third-party integrators. We build that discipline into every engagement.
What we do
Five capabilities. One accountability.
Advisory and quality assurance
Independent review of programmes in flight — design, localization, integration, cutover readiness and risk. An architecture assessment, a second opinion on a critical decision, or continuous assurance alongside a delivery partner.
Talent and allocation
Specialized SAP, Salesforce and AWS professionals placed into client programmes with contractual compliance, onboarding and governance.
Global TalentsCenter of Excellence design
Building the internal SAP capability that remains after the integrator leaves — operating model, roles, governance, and the specialists to staff it.
Products
Software where consulting reaches its limits. Griffin, Armstrong Fiscal Engine and Armstrong Radar come from problems we met repeatedly in client work, with maturity published openly.
Our softwareHow we protect judgment
Assurance and delivery do not mix by accident.
An assurance opinion is worth nothing if the firm giving it has an interest in the answer.
Declared upfront
Any existing or intended commercial interest in a programme we review is stated before the engagement begins.
Separate people
Assurance work is not performed by consultants allocated to the delivery being reviewed.
The client's call
Where a client wants assurance and delivery from us at once, the client decides — knowingly, in writing, with the boundary defined.
What we argue for
Customization is the silent killer of S/4HANA programmes.
Every customization added to the core today is a tax paid on every upgrade tomorrow. Excessive core modification creates technical debt, rigid dependencies and upgrade cycles that cost more each time. Clean Core is not a marketing term to us — it is the difference between a landscape that evolves and one that calcifies.
- Core decoupling strategy
- Side-by-side extension on SAP BTP
- API-first integration architecture
- Cloud-native innovation layer
- Upgrade-ready compliance design
The most expensive line of code in an S/4HANA programme is the one nobody can remove.
Choosing the path
The right route for each landscape.
Choosing between them is an architecture decision with a ten-year consequence, not a project preference. It is one of the most common subjects of our advisory work.
Greenfield
A clean implementation designed for maximum standardization. The right answer when the legacy landscape is no longer worth carrying.
Brownfield
In-place conversion preserving data and process while modernizing the core. Faster, but it inherits whatever was already there.
Bluefield / selective transition
Selective data migration combining attributes of both. Powerful, and frequently chosen for the wrong reasons.
Rollouts
Multi-country deployment with template governance and local compliance adaptation.
GROW and RISE with SAP
Cloud ERP, chosen deliberately.
GROW with SAP suits mid-market organizations seeking standardization and faster time to value. RISE with SAP offers business transformation as a service for complex enterprises, combining infrastructure, software and service commitments.
Armstrong's leadership worked inside SAP's RISE organization, advising customers whose programmes were delivered by third parties. We know where the commercial model helps, where it constrains, and which questions to settle before signature rather than after.
Where most programmes underestimate
Compliance is architecture, not a late constraint.
Tax reform, electronic invoicing and statutory reporting are treated in many global programmes as a workstream to handle near the end. That sequencing is where budgets break — because the obligation is not a report to be produced, it is a condition the transaction must satisfy before it can complete.
And a multinational does not face one model. It faces three at once, on different clocks, inside the same landscape. Designing for that from the start is the difference between one architecture and three parallel workarounds.
Three models, one landscape
The same ERP has to satisfy three incompatible regimes.
Latin America
Brazil and its neighbours authorize the document before the sale completes. The tax authority sits inside the transaction, not after it — and Brazil's own reform adds IBS and CBS on top of a model already running at scale.
European Union
ViDA makes e-invoicing and near real-time reporting mandatory for intra-EU B2B from July 2030, on the EN 16931 standard. Domestic regimes that predate 2024 — Italy, France, Poland, Germany and others — must converge by 2035.
United States
No federal mandate, and none announced. Adoption is driven by exchange networks and by trading partners rather than by law — which makes it the hardest of the three to plan for, because there is no deadline to design against.
What this means for design
Regulatory volatility belongs outside the core.
Mandates change faster than an ERP upgrade cycle. Any design that embeds country rules in core customizations is buying a rewrite every time a parliament votes — and Peppol, PINT and EN 16931 exist precisely so that the interoperability layer can absorb that change instead.
This is the same conviction that produced Griffin: keep the core clean, move the regulatory work to a layer built to be rewritten.
Let’s build what comes next
Your next transformation deserves more than a vendor.
Tell us what you are building, transforming or scaling. We will connect strategy, architecture and people around the outcome.