Key takeaways
Short answer: Shop-floor data and ERP conflict because they are collected differently: ERP from delayed, human-keyed transactions; the floor from real-time machine events. They sample different moments at different granularity, so they will never match exactly. The durable fix is one execution-layer source of truth that feeds ERP automatically — not two systems independently entering overlapping data. See also manufacturing execution system vs erp shop floor.
The two systems do not disagree because someone is careless; they disagree by construction. ERP counts at transaction points — a completion confirmation, a goods movement — while the floor generates a continuous stream of events. By the time a number is keyed into ERP it is already late, often rounded, and frequently reconstructed from memory.
At 14:00 a line has produced 4,200 units according to the PLC. The operator will not confirm anything in ERP until the order closes at 17:30, when they enter "6,000 produced, 150 scrap" from the count sheet. For three and a half hours ERP shows zero progress while the floor shows real output; then ERP jumps to a rounded number that does not match the machine total. Neither system is lying — they are describing different moments with different tools.
Reconciliation treats the symptom. As long as two systems independently capture the same events, they will drift again next shift, and the weekly meeting to make them agree becomes permanent. The only durable fix is removing the duplicate capture so there is one number, captured once.
Capture execution data once, automatically, at the floor (the MES or OEE layer), then push validated actuals up to ERP. ERP stops being a data-entry system and becomes a consumer of trusted numbers. The floor keeps its real-time detail; ERP gets a clean, reconciled total it can cost and plan against.
1. Treating it as an ERP problem. It is a data-capture architecture problem, not an ERP configuration one.
2. Adding more manual checks. More human entry makes the drift worse, not better.
3. Picking one system to "win". Each is right about its own moment; the fix is single capture, not declaring a winner.
An OEE platform that captures Availability, Performance and Quality automatically becomes the trusted execution source — the same data that feeds ERP. That is what ends the argument: one capture, feeding both the loss tree and the books.
Fabrico captures floor reality automatically and feeds clean actuals toward ERP, so the two stop disagreeing. Book a demo to see single-source capture in action.
Close, not identical — but from one source the small difference is explainable, not a fight.
No — it is a data-capture architecture problem. Where should the truth be captured, and how often.
At the execution layer, captured once and fed up to ERP.
Often an OEE/MES platform is enough to become the single source.
Automatically capture produced and scrap counts at the machine and feed them to ERP, instead of keying them at shift end.
Programați o întâlnire individuală cu experții noștri sau înscrieți-vă direct în planul nostru gratuit.
Nu este nevoie de card de credit!
Login
Blog
