Donato BlandolinoTwo service providers blame each other while production waits. How to tell whether the process and ERP system in your manufacturing operation have drifted apart, and why the gap can only be closed under a single point of responsibility.
Two service providers blaming each other. The SAP partner points to the process, the operations consultant to the system. And production is caught in the middle, waiting for someone to decide. This situation is so widespread in manufacturing companies that it barely attracts attention any more. It costs time, money and trust, and it almost always has the same cause.
In this article, we at SMART iNTERIM explain how to tell whether the process and system in your manufacturing operation have drifted apart, why this gap arises and why it can only be closed if both are under a single point of responsibility. The good news: For an initial diagnosis, you do not need a project, just a day on the shop floor.
What does it mean when process and system drift apart?
An ERP system represents how a company is supposed to work. The process on the shop floor describes how work is actually done. As long as the two are aligned, operational control works: The figures in the system reflect reality, planning is reliable, and decisions are based on data.
When the process and its representation in the system diverge, a gap emerges. It does not show up as a disruption, but as quiet duplication of work. The team carries on working, but with two versions of the truth at the same time: the one in the system and the one on the shop floor. This gap is precisely where SAP projects become expensive and operations programmes lose their effectiveness.
The three signals every manufacturing operation can check
In practice, three observations are enough to reveal the gap. They can be gathered within a single shift, without preparation or tools.
Shadow Excel. The more spreadsheets exist alongside the system, the less the team trusts the data in it. Each of these files marks a point where the system no longer reflects reality. Count the files, not the arguments for keeping them.
Overridden planning runs. If the materials planning team regularly corrects the system’s proposals manually, planning is being driven not by the system, but by knowledge held in individual people’s heads. This only becomes apparent when those people are absent, on holiday or leave the company.
Two backlogs. The backlog reported by the system and the backlog reported by the shift supervisor are two different figures. The difference is the exact measure of how far the process and its representation in the system have diverged.
None of these signals is a cause for alarm on its own. Together, they provide a precise picture of how far the shop floor and the system have drifted apart, and where.
Why does this gap arise in the first place?
All three signals have the same cause: the process and the system were built separately, optimised separately and managed under separate responsibilities.
This is rarely the result of poor work. It is the result of a division of responsibilities that is standard in the market. The SAP partner is responsible for the system side and optimises within the scope of what they can see. The operations consultant is responsible for the process side and likewise optimises within their own remit. Both deliver sound work. But no one is responsible for the interface between them.
For the company, this means that as soon as problems arise, the question of responsibility comes up. One party points to unclear processes, the other to system limitations. Both have their arguments. Meanwhile, production continues to wait. This is the most expensive discussion in the entire project because it consumes time without solving a single problem.
Why process optimisation without a system perspective remains ineffective
A process that does not work on the shop floor will not work in the system either. Digitising an unclear workflow gives you an unclear workflow with a timestamp. Digitisation reveals the weakness sooner, but it does not fix it.
The reverse is also true. A properly configured system is of no use if master data is not maintained, production confirmations are late or planning parameters do not match the actual manufacturing logic. The system then produces results that are formally correct but that no one uses, and the team falls back on Excel.
That is why asking whether the process or the system should be adapted first frames the sequence incorrectly. Both must be developed together, by people who understand both sides and take responsibility for the outcome.
How SMART iNTERIM brings process and system together
That is precisely why SMART iNTERIM is built on two pillars that are almost always offered separately in the market.
The first pillar is SAP and Enterprise Transformation: teams that combine SAP architecture with operational process responsibility. They know the system side, but start with the process, not with customising.
The second pillar is Interim Management: temporary leadership from plant management to executive management, with responsibility for the outcome rather than the recommendation. Our interim managers come from hands-on operational backgrounds. Many started in goods receiving, logistics and production themselves before going on to manage, relocate and restructure plants.
Getting both from a single provider saves you the most expensive discussion in the project: who is to blame. Instead, there is a single point of responsibility, one set of priorities and one figure against which performance is measured.
Frequently asked questions about processes and systems in production
How can I tell whether the process and the ERP system have drifted apart?
By three signals: the number of Excel spreadsheets maintained alongside the system, how often the materials planning team manually overrides system proposals, and the difference between the backlog reported by the system and the backlog reported by shift management.
What does shadow Excel mean, and why is it a warning sign?
Shadow Excel refers to spreadsheets and files maintained in parallel with the ERP system. Each of these files marks a point where the team does not trust the system data. They are not a matter of convenience, but a map of the gaps in how the system reflects reality.
Should you optimise the processes first or implement the system first?
The question is framed incorrectly. A process that does not work on the shop floor will not work in the system either, and a well-configured system remains ineffective if master data and production confirmations are not right. Both must be developed together.
Why do SAP projects in manufacturing fail so often?
Because responsibility for the system and responsibility for the processes are assigned separately. As soon as problems arise, the service providers begin discussing who is responsible while production waits. This discussion takes more time than the actual technical solution.
How long does an initial assessment take?
The three signals can be gathered within a day in manufacturing. For a robust root cause analysis with an action plan, we allow one to two weeks on site, depending on the size of the plant.
About SMART iNTERIM
SMART iNTERIM Management combines SAP and Enterprise Transformation with Interim Management in manufacturing companies, focusing on restructuring, plant set-up, plant relocation and process optimisation. We take responsibility for the outcome, not the recommendation, and work where value is created. From hands-on experience, not from a distance. Competence is a prerequisite; personality makes the difference. Talk to us if the processes and systems in your manufacturing operation no longer speak the same language.
Read more
- SAP and Enterprise Transformation: /expertise/sap
- Process optimisation: /expertise/prozesse
- Optimising material flow: /blog/materialfluss-optimieren
