ERP development services for finance, operations, and reporting.
ERP work is mostly translation: between finance, operations, and the systems that already hold the truth. Model the real workflow first, then replace the spreadsheets around it.
- Shared data model
- One
- Source of truth
- One
- Every change tracked
- Audit
- Rollout by market
- Phased
Overview
What ERP Systems has to solve.
A period-end close or operation that depends on manual reconciliation. The useful questions are about ownership, failure paths, and what the team can operate after launch.
What good looks like
One source of truth per entity Period-end close no longer depends on exports Every change leaves an audit trail Operations keep running during migration Controls are testable and documented
Domain first, software second
ERP projects fail when the software is selected before the operating model is understood. Every function has a slightly different definition of a customer, an order, or a cost centre, and the system ends up encoding the argument.
We map the real process, including the spreadsheets and phone calls that happen outside the system. Then we define a shared domain model and the exceptions that need explicit handling. The software follows the decisions.
- A shared definition for every core entity
- Explicit exception and approval paths
- One owner for every field and workflow
- A migration plan with reconciliation
A rollout that keeps the business running
The riskiest moment in an ERP programme is cutover. A phased rollout costs more planning and creates a period of dual operation, and it protects the business from a single catastrophic failure.
We run the new path in parallel where the risk justifies it, reconcile the outputs, and expand only when the current phase is stable. The operating team sees the evidence before they are asked to trust it.
- Market-by-market or entity-by-entity rollout
- Parallel-run reconciliation
- Rollback criteria agreed in advance
- Training and support at the point of change
What a useful ERP brief should settle
An ERP brief should document how work moves between finance, operations, inventory, and reporting. It should distinguish the process that must change from the behaviour the business needs to preserve.
It should also name the systems of record, the reconciliation rules, and the controls auditors expect. A domain model is only useful if the people doing the work recognise it.
- Entities, ownership, and reconciliation rules
- Approvals, exceptions, and audit requirements
- Migration sources, data quality, and cutover constraints
- Which processes stay, change, or disappear
Why teams call us
What usually goes wrong.
These are the recurring problems behind a erp systems brief. Naming them early changes the architecture, the estimate, and the launch plan.
The real process is a spreadsheet
The ERP records one version of the truth. Finance and operations maintain another in exports and reconciliations.
Every team defines the customer differently
There is no shared domain model, so reporting disagrees and migration becomes a political argument.
The rollout has to be all at once
The current plan assumes a big-bang cutover. The business has a low tolerance for that level of operational risk.
Controls are undocumented
Approvals, permissions, and audit are handled by habit. Nobody can prove who changed what or why.
Scope
What the project includes.
Every erp systems project is scoped around a working system and the decisions that keep it healthy.
Domain and process mapping
A shared model of customers, orders, inventory, invoices, payments, and the decisions between them.
Finance and operations workflows
Approvals, exceptions, period close, and the role-specific interfaces people use every day.
Migration and reconciliation
A staged data migration with reconciliation reports, ownership, and a rollback plan.
Integration layer
Connections to banking, CRM, commerce, warehouse, and reporting systems with explicit contracts.
Controls and audit
Role-based access, segregation of duties, immutable audit, and testable approval paths.
Phased rollout
A market-by-market or entity-by-entity plan that keeps operations running while the new system earns trust.
Use cases
Where this service helps most.
The same service looks different in each company. These are the situations where it matters most.
Period close depends on manual reconciliation
The close depends on exports, manual matching, and a few people who know where the bodies are buried.
A reconciled close from one ledger
Regional systems disagree
Each market has its own customer definition and chart of accounts. Group reporting is a manual stitch.
A shared domain with market-specific read models
The ERP cannot support a new model
The business wants subscriptions, new entities, or a different fulfilment model, and the current system cannot represent it.
A target model and a migration sequence that fits the business
Process
Four stages. Working software at every review.
Discovery leads to an architecture decision, a build with visible increments, and an operating model that stays after we leave.
What stays constant
One accountable lead, a working demo at each review, and documentation from the first release. Scope and risk set the plan, and we will say when a smaller project is the better answer.
- 01
Map
Interview finance and operations, document the real process, and define the domain and success metrics.
Output: Process map, domain model, migration strategy
- 02
Design
Design the target workflows, controls, data model, and rollout sequence. Prototype the highest-risk screens.
Output: Target architecture, controls matrix, rollout plan
- 03
Build and migrate
Implement in phases, migrate with reconciliation, and run the old and new paths in parallel where needed.
Output: Production modules, reconciliation reports, training
- 04
Stabilise
Monitor close time, exceptions, and data quality. Expand to the next entity only when the current one is stable.
Output: SLOs, exception review, next-phase roadmap
Stack & standards
Chosen for durability.
Fewer moving parts, clear ownership, and a handover your engineers can defend. The stack follows the constraint.
PostgreSQL
Durable transactional data and reporting
Node.js
Domain services and integrations
Temporal
Long-running workflows and retries
Angular
Role-specific operational interfaces
dbt
Reconciled reporting models
OpenTelemetry
Audit, tracing, and operational visibility
How we choose
Custom ERP versus packaged ERP
A packaged ERP is often the right base for standard finance and HR. Custom work earns its place when the operating model is the differentiator or the integration surface is unusual.
Big bang versus phased
A big-bang cutover is faster on paper and riskier in practice. We prefer a phased rollout with reconciliation and a rollback path unless the business genuinely cannot operate in parallel.
Replace versus wrap
Sometimes the core ledger should stay and the surrounding workflows should be rebuilt. We map what must be replaced and what can be wrapped safely.
Measured outcomes
“They rebuilt the core without downtime. The close now runs from one reconciled ledger.”
FAQ
Questions we hear often.
The questions buyers ask before a erp systems project. If yours is not here, ask it directly.
Ask an engineer01 Do you replace our existing ERP or integrate with it?
Both are possible. We start by mapping what the existing ERP does well and where the operating model is constrained. Sometimes the right answer is to keep the ledger and rebuild the surrounding workflows.
02 How do you keep operations running during migration?
We migrate behind a reconciliation layer and phase the cutover by domain or market. The old path stays available until the new one reconciles, and every exception has an owner and a rollback route.
03 Can you migrate without stopping operations?
Yes, with a phased plan, parallel operation where needed, reconciliation reports, and a rollback path. The exact approach depends on the entity and the tolerance for dual running.
04 How do you handle audit and permissions?
Roles, segregation of duties, and audit are designed as first-class features. Every change should be attributable, and approval paths should be testable.
05 Who owns the data model?
You do. We document the model, the decisions, and the migration logic. The goal is a system your team can operate and extend without reverse-engineering it.
Next step
Which reconciliation still depends on a spreadsheet?
Tell us about the close, the entities, or the workflow that keeps breaking. A senior engineer will reply with a phased plan.
Contact us