Case study
A multi-entity operating group on one governed record
Three operating companies, shared counterparties and document-heavy approvals, brought onto a single operating model with written approval boundaries — with the implementation timeline and a representative cost breakdown set out in full.
This account is anonymised. The organisation is not named, no third-party testimonial is quoted, and no performance, savings or return figures are claimed. The timeline and cost breakdown below are representative of a deployment of this shape, produced from the published AEGIS OS™ pricing model. Your own figures come from an Architecture Assessment.
Starting point
Group questions that took days to answer
The group ran three operating companies sharing counterparties, documents and people. Each had grown its own tooling and its own conventions, so anything asked at group level had to be rebuilt by hand from three sources that rarely agreed.
- Three entities, three ways of working
- Each operating company kept its own records, naming conventions and approval habits, so group-level questions had to be answered by hand.
- Documents outside any system
- Contracts, statements and approvals lived in shared drives and inboxes, with no authoritative version on the record they belonged to.
- Approvals held in people
- Who could approve what, and at what threshold, was understood rather than written, so exceptions were invisible after the fact.
- Reporting rebuilt each cycle
- Group reporting was reassembled from spreadsheets every period, which made numbers hard to trace back to a source.
What was built
One operating model, entity separation preserved
- One operating record across entities
- Shared definitions for entities, counterparties, documents and work items, with entity-level separation preserved inside one model.
- Written approval model
- Approval thresholds, owners and escalation paths defined per entity and enforced in the workflow rather than remembered.
- Governed document handling
- Documents are attached to the record they belong to, versioned, and summarised by intelligence roles with human review before the summary is relied on.
- Intelligence roles inside boundaries
- Roles draft, extract, reconcile and prepare recommendations within scopes signed off during implementation. Release stays with named people.
- Reporting from the record
- Group and entity reporting reads from the operating record, so every figure traces to the entries behind it.
Implementation timeline
Seven phases across roughly 26 weeks
Phases overlap where the work allows. Each one hands over named work products before the next depends on it.
Phase 01
Architecture
Weeks 1–3
Assessment findings converted into the operating model: records, workflows, approval thresholds, role scopes and the build order.
Deliverables
- Architecture blueprint
- Approval and role matrix
- Phased delivery plan
Phase 02
Foundation
Weeks 3–8
Core records, entity separation, permissions and the document model configured and validated against real material.
Deliverables
- Configured operating record
- Access and role separation
- Document model
Phase 03
Connect
Weeks 7–12
Systems that stay in place connected through their documented interfaces, with field mapping agreed per system.
Deliverables
- Integration map
- Connected systems of record
- Sync validation report
Phase 04
Intelligence
Weeks 11–17
Intelligence roles configured against written scopes, with approval points and escalation paths wired into the workflow.
Deliverables
- Role scope documents
- Approval checkpoints
- Attribution and audit trail
Phase 05
Migrate
Weeks 15–21
Historic records and documents migrated per entity, reconciled and signed off before the entity goes live.
Deliverables
- Migration plan
- Reconciliation sign-off
- Entity cutover
Phase 06
Governance
Weeks 20–24
Boundaries, thresholds and review cadence confirmed with owners; exception handling tested.
Deliverables
- Governance handbook
- Review cadence
- Exception playbook
Phase 07
Enable
Weeks 23–26
Team enablement per entity, handover to Managed AEGIS and the first operating review.
Deliverables
- Enablement sessions
- Operating handover
- First review
Cost breakdown
Where the investment goes in a deployment of this shape
Representative proportions from the published AEGIS OS™ pricing model. Your own figures are produced by the Architecture Assessment and confirmed before any work starts.
| Line | Representative amount |
|---|---|
Architecture Assessment Paid diagnostic that produces the blueprint, roadmap and quote. Credited against implementation when the engagement proceeds. | $3,500 – $10,000 |
Architecture and design Operating model, approval matrix, role scopes and delivery sequencing. | ≈ 10–15% of implementation |
Configuration and build Module configuration, workflow build, permissions and reporting across the entities in scope. | ≈ 45–55% of implementation |
Integration and data migration Connecting retained systems and migrating historic records and documents per entity. | ≈ 20–30% of implementation |
Governance and enablement Boundary definition, testing, documentation and team handover. | ≈ 10–15% of implementation |
Managed AEGIS (recurring) Monitoring, support, governance review and continued build after launch. Priced against the live deployment, not the build. | Monthly platform base from $750, plus service |
Implementation is priced from the architecture, not from a package. Number of entities, users, modules, integrations, migration volume and governance requirements are what move the figure. See how pricing is built.
Governance boundaries
What the system does not decide
- Intelligence roles draft, extract and recommend. Approval, release and commercial decisions stay with named people.
- Retained systems are connected through documented interfaces; replacement is an architecture decision, never an assumption.
- Every figure above is a representative range from the published pricing model, not a quote and not a record of what any organisation paid.
These are anonymised accounts of deployments operated within the AEGIS group or licensed to an operating partner. They describe architecture, workflow and operating changes only. They are not third-party customer references and they contain no performance, savings or return figures.
Next step
Get the timeline and cost for your own operation
The Architecture Assessment scores your operating model and returns the recommended scope, phase-by-phase timeline and confirmed investment. The fee is credited against implementation.