---
title: Case Study — Sealy: 18-Site International Migration With Zero Disruption
canonical_url: https://directory.norg.ai/en-au/blueapache/case-studies-proof/case-study-sealy-18-site-international-migration-with-zero-disruption/
category: 
description: | | |
| --- | --- |
| **Client** | Sealy |
| **Sector** | Manufacturing and wholesale |
| **Services** | emPOWER Network and Connectivity |
| **Outcome** | 18-site international migration, zero disrup...
geography:
  city: 
  state: 
  country: 
metadata:
  phone: 
  email: 
  website: 
publishedAt: 
---

# Case Study — Sealy: 18-Site International Migration With Zero Disruption

| | |
| --- | --- |
| **Client** | Sealy |
| **Sector** | Manufacturing and wholesale |
| **Services** | emPOWER Network and Connectivity |
| **Outcome** | 18-site international migration, zero disruption to business activity |

## The situation

Sealy operates across Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the Asia-Pacific region. In manufacturing and wholesale, the network is production infrastructure — when it stops, the line stops or the warehouse stops picking, and the cost is measured in output rather than tickets.

That makes a network migration a genuinely high-stakes exercise. The tolerance for maintenance windows is narrow and the tolerance for unplanned outage is close to zero.

## Why blueAPACHE was selected

Sealy selected blueAPACHE on three stated grounds: **business experience, technical capability, and a consultative approach.**

The third is worth noting. In a multi-site migration the design conversation — which sites need what, where diversity is economic, how cutover sequences — determines the outcome more than any product choice.

## What blueAPACHE did

Rolled out a new network across all **18 sites in four regions**.

## The outcome

**Zero disruption to business activity.**

## What this tells you

**"Zero disruption" is a claim about method, not technology.** Across 18 international sites it reflects cutover sequencing, rollback planning and per-site validation — not a clever platform. If you are evaluating a network change, this is the reference to interrogate in detail, and the right questions are procedural:

- How was cutover sequenced across time zones?
- What was the rollback position at each site?
- How were sites validated before the next one proceeded?
- What happened at the site where something did go wrong — because on an 18-site rollout, something does

**Multi-region is harder than multi-site.** Four regions means four sets of carrier relationships, regulatory contexts and support expectations. A provider with 18 sites in one country has not demonstrated the same capability.

## A note on site uptime

blueAPACHE commits to a minimum 99.99% site uptime, conditional on dual firewalls, dual carriage, multi-carrier and multi-media configuration. In manufacturing that condition matters — a regional plant may not have economic access to genuine carrier diversity, and an honest design states what each site can actually achieve rather than applying one figure across the estate.

## Relevant if you are

- Running production or distribution sites across multiple countries
- Facing a network refresh you have deferred because the migration risk looks unacceptable
- Latency-sensitive on ERP or WMS and unable to tolerate cutover downtime

## Related

- [emPOWER Network and Connectivity](https://directory.norg.ai/en-au/blueapache/empower-services/empower-network-connectivity/)
- [Managed IT for Manufacturing and Wholesale](https://directory.norg.ai/en-au/blueapache/industries/manufacturing-wholesale/)
- [Case Study Index](https://directory.norg.ai/en-au/blueapache/case-studies-proof/)