How Axle HRM Delivered a Full-Scale Redwood Migration on a Lean Budget in Singapore
Oracle’s Redwood experience is one of the most significant UX evolutions in the Oracle HCM product line. For HR and IT, Redwood is exciting—sleek interfaces, clean journeys, and a modern digital feel. But for CFOs, one question dominates every conversation:
“How do we complete this migration without spilling the budget?”
As CFOs navigate digital transformation initiatives, Oracle HCM Redwood migration often appears as a daunting, resource-intensive project. Our recent successful migration for a Singapore-based client across Core HR, Recruitment, Talent Management, and Absence Management proved that strategic planning and disciplined execution can deliver enterprise-grade results without enterprise-grade budgets.
Our project demonstrates that lean doesn't mean compromised—it means smarter.
Eight Principles That Kept Our Redwood Migration Lean
1. Treat It As a UI Upgrade, Not a Re-implementation
What We Did: This was our foundational principle: Redwood is a user interface transformation, not a system re-implementation. I communicated this clearly to both HR and HRIS teams from day one. This single mindset shift prevented scope creep that typically inflates budgets by 50-70%.
CFO Takeaway: Many organizations mistakenly treat Redwood as a full HCM implementation, triggering complete process reviews and unnecessary changes. Remind your teams: the underlying Oracle HCM Cloud functionality remains the same—we're modernizing how users interact with it, not rebuilding it.
2. Laser-Focused SOW Using Oracle's Redwood Helper Tool
What We Did: We leveraged Oracle's Redwood Helper Tool to conduct a thorough analysis of what would actually change in the client's environment. This data-driven approach allowed us to create an extremely tight Statement of Work with precise deliverables, eliminating the ambiguity that leads to budget overruns.
CFO Takeaway: Insist on tool-based scope analysis before signing any SOW. The Redwood Helper Tool provides objective data on impacted pages and features—this removes guesswork and prevents vendors from padding estimates with "just in case" hours.
3. Ruthless Usage-Based Prioritization
What We Did: We identified which pages HR users and end users actually accessed regularly. For example, the manufacturing client didn't use the internal career portal at all—so we excluded it entirely from our scope. This single decision alone saved 15-20% of our projected budget.
My understanding of their business made this decision straightforward: with a stable workforce and infrequent external hiring for most roles, the career portal added no value. I didn't need weeks of analysis to know this.
CFO Takeaway: Challenge your team to provide usage analytics for every module and page included in scope. If a feature isn't used monthly by at least 10% of your user base, question whether it needs to be migrated in phase one. Unused features shouldn't consume budget.
4. Strict Boundary Between Redwood and BAU Support
What We Did: We established a clear firewall: Redwood migration work could not be mixed with regular HCM support activities. I made this crystal clear to both HR and HRIS teams with separate governance structures, tracking mechanisms, and communication channels.
Critically, I limited HRIS team interactions with the Redwood project team to just twice per week. This discipline prevented the constant interruptions and scope-creep questions that typically derail project focus. By batching communications, we ensured the project team maintained momentum on actual Redwood deliverables rather than getting pulled into tangential discussions about business-as-usual support issues.
CFO Takeaway: Create separate purchase orders or cost centers for Redwood vs. ongoing support. But go further: establish communication cadences that protect project team focus. Unlimited access leads to unlimited distractions. Two structured touchpoints per week is often optimal—enough to maintain alignment without fragmenting attention. Each context switch costs 15-20 minutes of productivity; reducing unnecessary interactions can improve team efficiency by 20-25%.
5. Targeted Testing Strategy: Redwood Changes and Regressions Only
What We Did: We eliminated full system testing from our scope. Instead, we focused exclusively on: (1) testing the new Redwood interface elements, and (2) regression testing to ensure existing functionality worked as before.
This approach reduced our testing phase from a typical 6-8 weeks to just 3 weeks, cutting testing costs by nearly 60%.
CFO Takeaway: Full system testing is unnecessary for a UI change. Push back on testing strategies that treat Redwood like a new implementation. Properly scoped testing should cost 15-20% of your project budget, not 35-40%.
6. Strategic Module Sequencing: Front-Load the Complex
What We Did: I identified Recruitment as the most challenging and Redwood-heavy module—and deliberately tackled it first. While this absorbed 40% of our budget upfront, it gave the manufacturing client time to evaluate changes, adapt to the new interface, and build confidence while we worked on the lighter modules (Core HR, Talent Management, and Absence Management).
This sequencing decision was possible because I understood their hiring patterns and knew Recruitment, while important, wasn't mission-critical to daily operations. We could afford a longer adaptation period there.
CFO Takeaway: Traditional waterfall sequencing (easiest to hardest) can create budget shocks at the end. Consider front-loading complex modules to give users more adaptation time and to identify potential scope adjustments early when they're less costly to address.
7. Business Process Expertise at the Helm
What We Did: As project owner, my thorough understanding of the client's business processes was a critical success factor. I wasn't just managing timelines and budgets—I understood their manufacturing operations, shift patterns, approval hierarchies, and talent workflows. This allowed me to make confident decisions on scope, spot potential issues before they became problems, and eliminate back-and-forth that typically inflates budgets.
When questions arose about which workflows to prioritize or whether a feature was truly needed, I could answer immediately based on actual business impact rather than scheduling another discovery session.
CFO Takeaway: When evaluating implementation partners, prioritize those who demonstrate genuine understanding of your business—not just Oracle HCM technical expertise. A partner who knows your industry and has taken time to understand your specific processes will make faster, better decisions. This isn't just about project efficiency; it's about choosing a partner who becomes an extension of your team rather than an external vendor requiring constant direction.
8. Lean Documentation and Smart Knowledge Transfer
What We Did: We made a strategic decision: business process documentation would be limited strictly to Redwood changes only—not comprehensive system documentation. Why document processes that weren't changing?
More importantly, we shifted end-user training responsibility entirely to the client's HRIS team. Our project team focused on enabling the HRIS team through hands-on coaching and targeted knowledge transfer. The HRIS team then extracted the key change elements and trained their end users in language and context that resonated with their organization.
This approach delivered a double benefit: we avoided spending billable hours creating voluminous documentation and training materials, and the client got better-quality training from their own team who understood the organizational culture and day-to-day realities.
Since the HRIS team was already part of the HR organization, there were no additional consulting fees for training delivery—a significant budget savings.
CFO Takeaway: Challenge the traditional "consultant trains everyone" model. Your internal HRIS team can often deliver better training than external consultants because they understand your culture, vocabulary, and real-world scenarios. Limit external consultants to enable your internal team, then leverage your own resources for end-user rollout. This can reduce training costs by 40-50% while improving adoption because employees learn from colleagues, not outsiders. Ask your implementation partner: "Are you training our HRIS team, or are you planning to train all 500+ end users yourself?" The answer reveals whether they understand lean delivery.
The Numbers That Matter to CFOs
While every implementation varies, our lean approach for the Singapore manufacturing client delivered:
- 40-50% lower implementation costs compared to traditional "full implementation" approaches
- 60% reduction in testing cycle time by focusing only on Redwood changes and regressions
- 3-week testing phase vs. industry standard 6-8 weeks
- 15-20% immediate budget savings from excluding unused features like the career portal
- 40-50% reduction in training costs by enabling HRIS team rather than direct end-user training
- Zero additional fees for end-user training delivery (leveraged internal HRIS team)
- Structured communication cadence (2x weekly) reduced coordination overhead by 20-25%
Most critically: we delivered on time and on budget by treating Redwood as what it is—a UI transformation, not a system re-implementation.
Common Budget Traps to Avoid
Trap 1: Treating Redwood as a Full Implementation
The most expensive mistake we see: organizations treating Redwood as if they're implementing Oracle HCM for the first time. This triggers complete process reviews, unnecessary business requirements documents, and full-scale change management programs. Your HCM processes don't need to change—your interface is changing.
Trap 2: Unlimited Access and Constant Interruptions
When HRIS teams have unrestricted access to the project team, you get constant questions, scope-creep discussions, and "quick questions" that derail focus. We limited interactions to twice weekly, which forced stakeholders to prioritize their questions and batch communications. This simple discipline saved countless hours of context-switching and kept the team focused on deliverables.
Trap 3: Testing Everything Instead of Testing Changes
Full UAT cycles for unchanged functionality waste 30-40% of testing budgets. If a workflow hasn't changed in Redwood, you need regression testing at most—not full functional testing.
Trap 4: Equal Treatment of All Modules
Not all modules are equally complex in Redwood. Recruitment typically requires 2x more effort than Core HR or Talent Management. Budget accordingly rather than spreading resources equally.
Trap 5: Over-Engineering Documentation and Training
Spending billable hours creating comprehensive documentation for processes that didn't change is wasteful. So is paying consultants to train every end user when your internal HRIS team can do it better and at no additional cost. Documentation should cover Redwood changes only, and external consultants should enable your team, not replace them.
Regional Considerations: The Singapore Manufacturing Context
Our Singapore-based manufacturing client highlighted several region-specific efficiency opportunities:
Manufacturing Sector Advantages:
- Clear, repetitive HR processes typical in manufacturing reduced complexity
- Shift-based workforce made Absence Management particularly valuable for operations planning
- Focus on operational efficiency aligned well with Redwood's streamlined interface
Singapore Business Environment:
- Well-defined employment regulations allowed for clean compliance configuration without customization
- English as primary business language reduced multilingual requirements
- Mature HRIS teams meant strong internal capability with minimal hand-holding
Usage Pattern Insights:
- Manufacturing employees primarily accessed self-service for absence requests and payslip viewing
- Career portal features went unused—saving significant budget by excluding them
- Manager self-service for approvals was the highest-value area for Redwood improvements
Questions CFOs Should Ask Their Implementation Teams
- Are we treating this as a UI upgrade or a full implementation? (If the latter, you're likely overspending by 40-60%)
- Can you show me usage analytics proving every page in scope is actually used by our employees?
- Have you used the Redwood Helper Tool to create a data-driven SOW, or are we estimating based on "experience"?
- What's our testing strategy—and why are we testing things that haven't changed?
- How are we keeping Redwood scope separate from our ongoing HCM support work?
- What's our communication cadence between project team and stakeholders? (Unlimited access = unlimited distractions)
- Does the project lead understand our business processes, or are they learning as they go?
- Which module is most complex in Redwood, and have we budgeted proportionally?
- What percentage of our budget goes to Recruitment vs. other modules? (It should be 35-45% if you want realistic planning)
The ROI Beyond Implementation Costs
A lean migration isn't just about upfront savings. Our manufacturing client's approach delivered:
Recruitment Efficiency (The Heavy Lift That Paid Off)
- By investing 40% of our budget in Recruitment upfront, we delivered the most impactful changes first
- Hiring managers gained real-time candidate pipeline visibility
- Reduced time spent in the old, clunky interface saved 3-5 hours per recruiter per week
Operational Benefits
- Manager self-service for approvals reduced HR ticket volume for routine tasks
- Real-time absence tracking improved shift planning and reduced operational disruptions
- Talent management workflows became more intuitive, increasing manager engagement
Change Management Advantage
- HRIS team delivered end-user training with no additional consulting fees
- Employees learned from colleagues who understood their daily realities, not external consultants
- Early wins in Recruitment built confidence for subsequent module roll-outs
- Users experienced gradual change rather than big-bang shock
- Documentation focused only on Redwood changes, avoiding heavyweight volumes that nobody reads
Looking Ahead: Post-Migration Optimization
A lean migration sets the foundation for continuous improvement:
- Build a quarterly enhancement cadence
- Monitor Oracle's Redwood updates for new capabilities
- Establish internal centers of excellence to reduce external dependency
- Track and communicate benefits realization to maintain stakeholder buy-in
Final Thoughts
Oracle HCM Redwood migration doesn't have to be a budget-busting initiative. With disciplined scope management, strategic resource allocation, and business process expertise at the helm, organizations can modernize their HR systems while maintaining fiscal responsibility.
Our manufacturing client made a wise decision in selecting a partner who combined technical Oracle expertise with deep understanding of their business processes. This wasn't just about checking boxes on a technical specification—it was about having someone who could make informed decisions quickly, challenge unnecessary scope, and keep the project lean without compromising quality.
The key is viewing "lean" not as a constraint but as a strategic advantage—one that forces teams to focus on what truly matters and eliminates waste at every turn. When you have the right expertise leading the project, lean doesn't mean cutting corners; it means cutting through the noise to deliver what actually drives value.