Service

Connect ERP and MES data without losing ownership or reconciliation

Enterprise resource planning (ERP) and manufacturing execution system (MES) integration coordinates commercial and production records. The design must define which system owns each field, when updates occur, and how mismatches are reconciled.

Discuss your operation Explore solutions

Understand

Where this service fits

This work is most useful when operational symptoms are visible but the target workflow, ownership, or system boundary is not yet dependable.

Orders and bills of materials are rekeyed

Production completion reaches planning late

Consumption quantities differ between systems

Master-data corrections are overwritten

Understand

A proposed before-and-after workflow

Current state

Planners export orders while supervisors update local trackers and finance reconciles production after the shift.

Proposed state

Approved orders and revisions flow to production, confirmations return with identifiers and timestamps, invalid records enter a visible exception queue, and daily reconciliation has an owner.

The future state remains a design until it is tested with the people, data, systems, and exceptions in scope.

Deliver

Scope and deliverables

The exact package follows discovery and agreed responsibilities. A typical engagement can include:

System-of-record matrix

Canonical field and identifier mapping

Interface, timing, and security design

Reconciliation and replay procedure

Test pack and support runbook

Deliver

Data and decisions needed

Access is limited to what the agreed work needs. Client owners approve source authority, operational rules, and acceptance criteria.

Reference	Input or decision to establish
01	Order, item, routing, BOM, and consumption samples
02	Status and revision rules
03	Interface capabilities and rate limits
04	Error logs and reconciliation examples

Deliver

Delivery sequence

A bounded sequence protects continuity and makes learning visible before wider rollout.

01
Map business events and ownershipDefine evidence and the exception path
02
Profile identifiers and master dataDefine evidence and the exception path
03
Design messages and failure controlsDefine evidence and the exception path
04
Test in a representative environmentDefine evidence and the exception path
05
Reconcile parallel outputsDefine evidence and the exception path
06
Cut over by product, line, or site where practicalConfirm ownership and handover

Govern

How it fits existing systems

Existing systems are mapped by business responsibility, supported interface, data authority, update timing, and failure behavior. The design may integrate, configure, retain, or replace a component; no universal compatibility is assumed.

Govern

Measurement, timeline, and cost

Baseline definitions are agreed before implementation. Timeline and cost vary with system access, data quality, process variation, security, testing, number of sites, adoption, and support scope.

Records transferred without manual re-entry

Interface exception rate

Time to reconcile mismatches

Production confirmations posted by agreed cutoff

Govern

When a different approach may be better

A governed batch file may be safer than real-time integration where volume is modest, interfaces are limited, or master data is not yet stable.

Buying questions

Questions to resolve before work starts

These answers establish a practical default. Actual scope follows the systems, process, data, risks, and responsibilities in view.

01Can this work with our existing systems?

Usually, but compatibility must be confirmed. We first identify supported interfaces, data ownership, update frequency, security constraints, and failure behavior. Where a direct connection is unsafe or unavailable, a controlled file exchange or staged replacement may be more appropriate.

02How do you limit disruption during rollout?

We keep the first scope bounded, test with representative data, define rollback and manual fallback procedures, and agree a cutover window with process owners. Safety-critical control remains outside an information-workflow project unless separately assessed by qualified specialists.

03How are scope, timeline, and price determined?

They depend on process variation, systems and interfaces, data condition, security requirements, testing effort, number of sites, training, and support boundaries. Discovery produces an evidence-based scope rather than an unsupported fixed promise.

04How do we know whether the work is worthwhile?

Agree the metric, definition, baseline period, comparison conditions, data source, owner, and review date before changing the workflow. Released capacity is reported separately from cash savings, and operational outcomes are not attributed to software without comparable evidence.

05What happens when an automated step fails?

The design should make failures visible, retain the source record, route the item to an owned exception queue, allow authorized correction, and preserve an audit history. A workflow is incomplete until its exception path is tested.

Start with one process

Which workflow currently costs your team the most time?

Bring one normal example and one exception. Use them to frame the systems, decisions, controls, and evidence a sensible next step needs.

Discuss your operation

Where this service fits

A proposed before-and-after workflow

Scope and deliverables

Data and decisions needed

Delivery sequence

How it fits existing systems

Measurement, timeline, and cost

When a different approach may be better

Questions to resolve before work starts

Related routes through the site

Industries

Operational solutions

Resources and tools

Illustrative scenarios

Which workflow currently costs your team the most time?