The people in the workflow
Six roles touch this flow and rarely agree on what the system is for.
-
Operations manager
Owns the promise: the order ships, the stock is there.
-
Procurement
Turns demand into purchase orders and chases lead times nobody controls.
-
Warehouse
Knows what is on the shelf, which the system does not.
-
Finance
Needs every movement to reconcile: order to receipt, invoice to receipt, stock to ledger.
-
Sales
Wants a promise date without calling the warehouse.
-
The system owner in IT
Maintains an old release nobody dares upgrade and integrations written by someone who left.
How the work runs today
Follow one order from demand to ledger. Demand arrives as a customer order, a forecast or a reorder rule. Someone checks availability, often by asking a colleague. A purchase order is raised in the system, or by email when the system is slow. Goods are received, sometimes days after they physically arrived. An invoice is matched by hand against the order and the receipt. Finance closes the period and finds the differences.
Where it breaks
-
The system of record is not the record
The application holds the official number; the spreadsheet holds the one people use, so every reconciliation is an argument.
-
Manual three-way matching
Order, receipt and invoice are matched by a person reading three screens, so throughput is capped by one person's day and errors surface at period close.
-
Approval by mailbox
Nobody can say who approved an order without searching email, and leavers take their approvals with them.
-
Master data drift
One supplier exists three times, units of measure disagree between purchasing and the warehouse, and product codes carry meaning only two people decode.
-
Customisation that blocks upgrades
Reports and rules were written into the core years ago, so a vendor release cannot be applied without redoing them, and security work is deferred with it.
-
Exceptions handled off-system
Returns, partial deliveries and credit notes are the traffic nobody designed for, and where manual hours go.
The target flow
-
One record with one owner
Supplier, item and order each have one authoritative record and a named owner who can change it. Spreadsheets become views, not a parallel truth.
-
Capture at the event
Receipts, moves, counts and returns are entered where they happen, on a device that works on the floor.
-
Rules instead of reminders
Approval thresholds, matching tolerances and reorder points are configuration, applied automatically, with each decision and its author recorded.
-
Exceptions as first-class work
Short deliveries, substitutions and disputed invoices get their own queue, owner and ageing.
-
Reporting from the record
Period reporting reads the data the operation writes, so closing the month is a review, not a reconstruction.
None of this is new thinking. It is hard because it changes who decides what.
What the system owns, and what it does not
A project of this kind owns the operational record of items, suppliers, orders, receipts and movements, the rules that govern them, the exception queues and the reporting on top.
It does not own the general ledger, statutory filing or payroll, which stay in the finance system of record; warehouse automation and device firmware, which stay with their vendors; the commerce front end, with its own release cycle; or the supplier's systems. Each is an interface with an owner on both sides, not a module. Drawing that line early stops the project becoming a rewrite of the company.
Data and integration
The integration list is the real scope. For each connection, know who owns it, which way data moves, how often, and what happens when it fails.
- Finance system. Postings out, master data in, under the strictest reconciliation requirement on the list.
- Commerce or order intake. Orders and availability both ways, with an agreed definition of what available means.
- Suppliers and logistics. Purchase orders, confirmations and delivery notes, often by file transfer or portal rather than an API.
- Identity. One directory for accounts and roles, so access ends when someone leaves.
Two questions decide the timeline more than these: how much history must migrate, and how bad the master data is. Both are measurable in days, and both belong before a fixed scope.
What a delivery would contain
- Master data: items, suppliers, locations and units, with ownership and a de-duplication pass.
- Procure-to-receive: requisition, approval rules, purchase order, receipt and tolerance matching.
- Inventory movements: counts, transfers and adjustments, with their audit trail.
- An exception workbench with queues, owners and ageing.
- Operational reporting, plus an export the finance system accepts, and integration adapters with retry, dead-letter handling and an alert that reaches a person.
- Role-based access with multi-factor authentication on admin accounts, plus secure code review.
Rollout
Run one location or product family first, in parallel with the existing process, through a full period close. The change is only proven once a month has closed on it.
A workable sequence: assessment and data profiling; master data clean-up while the build runs; a pilot in parallel; a rehearsed cutover with a tested rollback; then extension site by site. The old system is switched off only after the last dependency on it is moved.
Governance is on the project delivery page, contracting shapes on the engagement models page.
Risks worth planning for
-
Master data is worse than reported
Profile it in the first two weeks. If duplicates and unit mismatches are widespread, clean-up is its own milestone, not a hidden task in the build.
-
The pilot location is the easy one
The tidiest site proves nothing; pick one with the exceptions.
-
Period close lands mid-cutover
Agree in writing with finance which close runs on which system before the date is set.
-
The spreadsheet survives
If people keep their private version after go-live, the record drifts within a quarter. That is an adoption measure, not a training issue.
-
Undocumented behaviour in the old system
Rules that exist only as code or habit have to be found by inspection. Where they cannot be, the uncertainty belongs in its own milestone.
How success is measured
Pick measures before the build and take a baseline: receipts entered on the day goods arrive; invoices matched without a person touching them; the age of the exception queue; days to close the period; stock accuracy against a physical count; and shadow spreadsheets in use. Your own baseline is the only comparison that means anything; how evidence is labelled is on the methodology page.
Where this holds, and where it does not
The flow holds across manufacturing, distribution, retail and services, because all four raise demand, commit supply, record a movement and reconcile it. What changes is the middle: manufacturing adds work orders and bills of material; distribution adds lot and serial tracking; retail adds store-level replenishment and returns; services replaces stock with time, so the same matching applies to timesheets and subcontractor bills. The plant-floor version is worked through in the ERP procurement and inventory guide and on the manufacturing and field service page.
It does not hold where the operation is regulated at item level, such as pharmaceutical dispensing or controlled goods. There compliance rules drive the design, and this flow is the wrong start.
When a project is the wrong answer
Stop before scoping if the process is undocumented and nobody will own writing it down; if no one can approve a change to master data ownership; if the real problem is commercial, such as supplier lead times; or if a standard configuration would meet the need and only reporting is missing. The business workflow transformation guide separates rules, configuration and bounded AI steps; an AI Workflow Blueprint settles it for one workflow.
Services and delivered proof
Most of this work is modernization, not a new product, so the commercial path is Legacy Application Modernization: assess first, then migrate one bounded capability at a time with parity evidence and a rollback. When the target is a new operational product, Custom Product Engineering is the route. Both are listed on the services page.
Working with a local Odoo implementation partner, Netbase has consulted on and customized Odoo in Vietnam for retail store chains, a food and beverage franchise chain, manufacturers, trading and distribution companies, a warranty service network, an industrial-park purchasing centre, an energy-sector project time and cost system, a university institute and a postal-service helpdesk; these clients are not named. The Odoo ERP implementations record sets out that scope.
Since 2020 Netbase has also worked as offshore development and managing partner on a multi-tenant cloud ERP SaaS platform for a client that is not named. Its first phase, from 2020 to 2023, covered CRM, real-time messaging, HR, a knowledge base, custom fields and configurable workflows, work and project management, and API integrations. A later retail phase covering point of sale, inventory, purchasing and vendor management was planned work when that profile was written; it is not presented as delivered, and nothing here rests on it. Wider experience covers e-commerce and ERP integration by API synchronisation of catalogues, inventory, orders and customer data, a Vtiger CRM to ERP upgrade and Redmine to ERP development.
Four neighbouring workflows are written up the same way: order and payment operations when the money side drifts, document and approval workflows for paper invoices and approvals, marketplace and classifieds operations when supply comes from third parties, and customer support automation when the queue is inbound.
Frequently asked questions
No. The common path is to leave it in place and move one capability out of it, with a parity check and a way back.
For custom development, the intellectual property created for you belongs to you. Any Netbase productized module used in a project is licensed rather than transferred, and the proposal says so up front.
Configure first, extend through documented extension points, and build separately only what the platform cannot hold. Customisation written into the core is what blocks the next upgrade.
Yes. Project teams draw on business analysis, project management, solution architecture, development, QA and UI/UX roles, with your process owners named in the plan. Netbase stays accountable for the outcome.
Services behind this solution
Custom product engineering for a bounded release outcome
One defined release of your product, built to named outcomes and handed over with acceptance evidence.
Learn More
Legacy application modernization, one bounded capability at a time
The code is assessed first, then one bounded capability moves at a time, with a way back.
Learn More
Map the workflow before you scope it
Write down the flow, the exceptions and the integration owners, then submit a project brief naming the part you want moved first. OutsourcingVN is operated by Netbase JSC and is Netbase's own outsourcing-services platform.