Infor LN Implementation
Infor LN Migration
About us
Contact
Brownfield vs. Greenfield – An Overview of the Differences
The decision between brownfield and greenfield migration affects how quickly you migrate, how much legacy data you carry over, and the extent to which processes, data, and structures are changed. With Infor LN, this question is particularly relevant when modifications, multiple locations, differing master data logics, or planned process harmonization are involved.
Point of comparison | Brownfield | Greenfield |
Basic idea | Adopt and modernize the existing system | Rebuild the target system |
Project Goal | Rapid technical migration, while maintaining existing processes | Realigning Processes, Data, and Structures |
Process Change | Low to moderate | High |
Handling Modifications | Review, adjust, and partially adopt | Question critically, reduce as much as possible |
Data Transfer | Extensive Import of Existing Data | Selective Adoption and Adjustment |
Project Speed | Usually faster | Usually more time-consuming |
A typical feature of a brownfield project is the use of an existing Infor LN system as a starting point. The core processes, data, and structures are retained and migrated to the target environment.
Typical requirements:
- Processes are largely stable
- Master data is consistent and well-maintained
- Modifications are manageable
- No comprehensive reorganization is planned
Advantages
- Faster project progression
- Less initial effort required for change
- Proven processes are maintained
Risks
- Legacy issues and data clutter are carried over
- Limited potential for standardization
- New features are not being utilized
With a greenfield approach, a new Infor LN target state is built from the ground up. Processes, master data, organizational structures, and system logic are not simply carried over, but are specifically redefined.
Common triggers:
- Inconsistent or ad-hoc master data
- Many customizations
- Different processes across locations
- Planned harmonization or consolidation
Advantages
- Clean target architecture
- Better foundation for standardization and updates
- Greater scalability
- Ability to use new standard features
Challenges
- Increased project and coordination efforts
- Greater need for change in the business units
In practice, the decision is not made in isolation. It depends on the interplay of several factors:
Factor | Brownfield | Greenfield |
Proximity of the existing system to the target structure | High | Low |
Modifications and Extensions | A few adjustments | Many custom solutions developed over time |
Data Quality | Clean, Consistent Master Data | Items requiring cleanup or duplicates |
Litigation Strategy | Existing processes will remain in place | Realignment with the new standard feature set |
Organizational Structure | Remains unchanged | Adaptation to the Organizational Structure |
Case Study: Consolidating Multiple Manufacturing Sites in Infor LN
The decision between brownfield and greenfield becomes particularly clear when multiple locations, plants, or existing systems are to be consolidated into a common Infor LN target environment. Such projects are not just about technology, but always involve organizational structure, master data logic, process harmonization, and the question of how much existing history can be meaningfully carried over.
Brownfield Consolidation: Using an Existing System as a Template
In a brownfield consolidation, one of the existing systems is typically used as a starting point. This system serves as a template into which data from other plants or units is migrated. The additional locations are then mapped in the target environment as separate organizational units or sites.
This approach is particularly useful when the locations involved already operate in very similar ways. This applies especially to companies where processes, master data logic, and basic organizational structures are largely consistent, and there are only a few local modifications.
Typical Prerequisites for Brownfield Consolidation
- Similar processes across multiple plants
- Comparable master data structures
- Few local custom solutions
- A site-based system serves as a viable template
The advantage: The project can be implemented more quickly because not every structure needs to be redefined.
The limitation: Differences between locations are often only partially resolved, and existing legacy issues can carry over into the new target environment.
Greenfield Consolidation: Establishing a New Target Structure for All Locations
In a greenfield consolidation, an existing system is not simply upgraded. Instead, a new, shared Infor LN target environment is created, in which organizational structures, processes, and master data are deliberately redesigned.
This approach is particularly useful when the initial conditions vary significantly from one location to another. This is often the case when different plants use different process logics, have established their own local cost and master data models, or even operate on different source systems.
Typical Reasons for a Greenfield Consolidation
- Different work processes depending on the location
- Differing master data logic
- Many customizations
- Various source systems
- New target organization instead of adopting the existing structure
The advantage: The company creates a cleaner and more harmonized foundation for future processes, governance, and international expansion.
The challenge: The effort required for coordination, consultation, and change management is significantly greater than in a brownfield consolidation.
When New Organizational Structures Make the Difference
In many consolidation projects, it is not enough to simply merge several existing plants into a single technical environment. Often, the location and corporate structure must also be rethought at the same time.
This is precisely where a greenfield approach often becomes the more sensible option. After all, when new organizational relationships are established, the process logic within the system usually changes as well. Transactions that were previously treated merely as transfers between locations can then become true intercompany processes—that is, internal sales, procurement, or delivery relationships with a clear business-oriented structure.
So, as soon as consolidation is intended not only to merge systems but also to create a new operating model, there are many arguments in favor of a greenfield approach.
Questions Companies Should Address Before Consolidation
Before deciding between a brownfield or greenfield project, the following questions, in particular, should be answered:
- How similar are the operations at the affected locations today?
- Is there an existing system that can serve as a template?
- Are master data, cost structures, and process models comparable?
- Should the existing structure be retained, or should it be deliberately rebuilt?
- Is the primary goal a faster merger, or true harmonization?
Here's How Brownfield and Greenfield Projects Differ
The difference between brownfield and greenfield projects is evident not only in the end goal but also in the specific project approach. Both approaches follow similar phases—but differ significantly in their focus.
Brownfield: Safely Migrate an Existing System
In a brownfield project, the focus is on technical migration. The goal is to migrate the existing Infor LN system to the new environment as smoothly as possible, without unnecessarily changing processes that are already working well.
Which modifications are still needed, and which ones can be omitted?
The system, extensions, and technical dependencies are being prepared for migration.
The cutover refers to the transition from the legacy system to the new system—that is, the point in time and the process by which work begins in production on the new system.
The migration is simulated multiple times to ensure that data is transferred correctly and that core processes run smoothly.
Key users are trained and, after the go-live, support the business units in their day-to-day operations.
Greenfield: Building a New Target System in a Structured Way
Greenfield projects go far beyond a mere technical migration. In addition to systems and data, processes, roles, and organizational structures are also redesigned.
Existing procedures are reviewed, and future processes are designed with specific goals in mind.
The goal is to stay as close as possible to the Infor LN standard.
Data is cleaned, harmonized, and adapted to the new target architecture.
Processes are tested in several phases—from the project team to realistic end-to-end scenarios.
Key users and business units actively help shape processes and take on responsibility early on.
The Role of Key Users and Business Units in Brownfield and Greenfield Projects
The success of a project does not depend solely on technology and data. What matters most is how early the business units are involved, how clearly decisions are made, and whether key users actively fulfill their roles in the project.
Key users are more than just testers
Ideally, key users should not wait until shortly before the go-live to start working with the system, but should begin doing so during the project. They contribute process knowledge from day-to-day operations, evaluate business requirements, and help shape a realistic vision of the target system.
Your responsibilities on the project:
- Contribute requirements from the business unit
- Help evaluate target processes
- Define and execute test scenarios
- Build training expertise
- Support end users after go-live
The integration process varies depending on the migration approach
In a brownfield project, the focus is more on validation and verification. Key users check whether existing processes in the target system continue to function and where adjustments are needed.
In a greenfield project, their role is much more conceptual. It’s not just about testing existing processes, but about actively helping to shape new workflows, roles, and responsibilities.
Key Users as Advocates After Go-Live
Key users remain central even after the project is complete. Ideally, they serve as the first point of contact for end users, support the implementation of new features in day-to-day operations, and help ensure that changes are rolled out to the organization in a controlled manner.
This is especially important when:
- Updates need to be tested
- New features need to be introduced
- Processes need to be adjusted
- Users need support in their day-to-day work
FAQ: Brownfield and Greenfield Migration in Infor LN
Yes. A greenfield implementation does not mean that no legacy data is transferred. As a rule, relevant master data and selected transaction data are selectively migrated, cleaned up, and adapted to the new target structure.
Strong, but not solely because of the approach. The closer Infor LN stays to the standard, the easier future updates and new features will be. In cloud projects, however, the same applies to both brownfield and greenfield implementations: Customizations must be implemented in a cloud-ready manner so that the system remains updatable. Brownfield implementations can therefore also remain updatable if existing modifications are addressed early on and converted to be cloud-compliant.
These elements should not be adopted across the board. In practice, the following are reviewed:
- what remains business-critical,
- what needs to be technically adapted,
- what can be resolved more in line with current standards,
- and what can be eliminated.
Especially in brownfield projects, people often underestimate the fact that not only data but also the associated system logic must be thoroughly evaluated.
Yes, this does happen in practice. For example, an existing site might be migrated using an approach closer to brownfield, while greenfield principles are applied to new plants, new organizational structures, or a global template.
It is important to note that:
A hybrid approach does not automatically reduce complexity. It must be carefully planned and requires a clear target architecture.
We will be happy to present solutions for your industry and your processes. Talk to the specialists for SMEs.
request now
