Factory ERP Foundation & CRM Workflow
A case study in defining operational records and handoffs across factory teams.
View Case Study →I build focused ERP applications that connect the operational steps generic systems leave fragmented: orders, purchasing, inventory, production, approvals and the information teams need to make decisions.
The data model must reflect what the business can actually promise and fulfil.
ERP work begins by following a real order or purchase through the business. That exposes the statuses, handoffs, exceptions and source documents that a generic process diagram misses. It also identifies where the same fact is currently maintained in several places.
The first release should create one dependable path through a valuable workflow. It does not need to imitate every module of a large ERP suite. Modules are added where tighter control or shared data produces a clear operational benefit.
Commercial terms, fulfilment status, allocations, exceptions and customer commitments.
Requests, supplier comparisons, approvals, purchase orders and expected receipts.
Locations, movements, reservations, adjustments, availability and traceable stock history.
Work orders, materials, stages, responsibilities and progress appropriate to the operation.
Permissions are defined around responsibilities: who may request, approve, receive, adjust or close a transaction. High-impact actions can require a reason and preserve the before-and-after values for review.
Dashboards are built from operational questions, not from whatever is easy to chart. Overdue approvals, unallocated orders, late receipts and inventory discrepancies are useful because someone can act on them.
A custom ERP can be an operational layer without replacing specialist finance or commerce tools.
System ownership is agreed record by record. A finance platform may remain authoritative for posted invoices, while the operational application controls fulfilment and sends approved transactions across. Product, supplier or customer master data can follow the same principle.
Integrations include validation, idempotency, retry policies and a way for an authorised user to reconcile failures. A green “connected” badge is not enough if nobody can see that three orders failed overnight.
Data migration separates records needed to operate from history that only needs to remain accessible. Rehearsed imports, totals and exception reports make cutover verifiable. Where practical, rollout is phased by site, team or workflow so support remains manageable.
Handover covers scheduled jobs, integrations, permissions, backup expectations and the administrative tasks the client will own. The goal is software the organisation can operate and extend, not a black box tied to its original developer.
Examples of the workflows, delivery decisions and system boundaries described on this page.
A case study in defining operational records and handoffs across factory teams.
View Case Study →An inspectable reference for intake, review, approval and order handoff decisions.
View Case Study →No. It can manage operational workflows and exchange approved transactions with the existing finance system, provided ownership and reconciliation are clearly designed.
Yes. A phased rollout is usually preferable, but each phase must be a complete workflow with clear integration and reporting boundaries.
Data is profiled and divided into operational records to migrate, history to archive and low-quality data to resolve. Test migrations and reconciliation checks precede cutover.
Share the current steps, records and systems behind an order, purchase or inventory movement. I will reply with the questions needed to assess a focused first phase.