Case study · ERP · Manufacturing
Fitting a bakery shop floor into a standard ERP, stage by stage
Each of six production zones needed what an MES gives: equipment use, quality gates, inputs and outputs per step. The contracted scope was standard ERP production planning, which treats production as a single unit. The design had to close that gap without an MES.
- 6Production zones
- 4ERP modules
- 1,000+SKUs cleaned and loaded
- 30+Work orders a day
Context
At TOTVS, I was the ERP implementation consultant on this project. The client is a coffee-shop chain in Ecuador that produces its own bakery goods, and its shop floor runs almost around the clock: three shifts of 30+ people each, six production zones, and 30+ work orders a day from its retail shops, plus 20–30 a week for special orders and events.
None of that ran through a system. Each zone had a coordinator counting what came in and went out, quality was inspected mostly by eye, and the daily schedule was set from spreadsheets. The system chosen to change that was TOTVS Protheus, and my part ran from discovery and process design through integrated system testing.
The constraint
Each zone needed what an MES gives: equipment use, quality gates, and inputs and outputs recorded per step. The contracted scope was standard ERP production planning, which treats production as a single unit. More control than that would have required an MES, and the client chose not to buy one.
That was a scope boundary, and it held: the client wouldn’t fund the gaps, and station coordinators and IT pushed back on extra manual recording. So the per-zone control had to be designed out of standard modules, and every piece that didn’t fit had to reach the client as a decision rather than a surprise.
What I did
Five stages, one map. Each stage shows the state of the shop floor, what changed on the map, and what I had to do as the business analyst to reach the next one.
Map key
- Manual count by the zone coordinator · stage 1
- Quality gate · stage 2. A T inside marks a test with a threshold · stage 4
- Dotted: undocumented handoff
- Dashed: designed
- Solid: configured
- Heavy: tested end to end · stage 5
- Dash-dot outline: ERP module boundary · stage 5
Badges S2–S5 mark the stage that added a one-off element. Zone outlines and quality gates arrive in stage 2 and thresholds in stage 4, on every zone.
- A Ingredient receiving and storage
- B Prep and batching
- C Dough processing and make-up
- D Baking
- E Post-bake and cooling
- F Finishing, packaging and logistics
Stage 1 of 5
Discovery: seeing the floor as it runs
- BA move · to reach the next stage
- Walked the entire operation — warehouse, all six zones, logistics and transport — and ran process workshops with key users, producing an AS-IS model of the whole flow.
- Shop floor
- Six zones running almost around the clock, each tracked by its own coordinator counting what came in and went out. Each zone inspected its own quality, mostly by eye. The daily schedule was set from spreadsheets.
- Systems and data
- No system in the production process, only spreadsheets: the bill of materials in one workbook, batch sizes calculated in another. Coordinator counts per zone; quality largely qualitative and undocumented.
- Still unresolved
- No traceable flow from warehouse to retail shop, and an operation that needed more than the ERP scope it had bought.
- Artifacts
- AS-IS process diagrams.
- Stakeholders in focus
- Station coordinators and the shop floor manager.
- On the map
- Every zone neutral, each with a manual-count marker. Two spreadsheets feed planning. Every handoff is dotted: undocumented.
Stage 2 of 5
Design: fitting an MES-shaped need into a standard ERP
- BA move · to reach the next stage
- A fit-first gap analysis: a standard workaround before a customization, a customization before a change request. Then the trade-off went to the client as their decision — record in detail per zone and start building quality and production data, or keep a simpler version covering quality at a broader level. They chose the detailed design.
- Shop floor
- Physically unchanged. The target design is drawn: each zone as its own shop floor inside the ERP, retail shops as virtual warehouses, and measurable quality gates.
- Systems and data
- An ERP prototype environment. Approved process diagrams, a gap list, and the client’s own batch-size values kept as inputs.
- Still unresolved
- The client wouldn’t fund the gaps, and station coordinators and IT pushed back on extra manual recording.
- Artifacts
- TO-BE process diagrams, risk-and-change plan, change requests, configuration plan, test guide, training plan, data conversion plan, sprint backlog.
- Stakeholders in focus
- The CFO, the IT director, station coordinators.
- On the map
- Each zone gains its own outline and a quality gate. Retail shops become warehouses, and the flow from Zone F to them is labeled “transfer + legal delivery document”. Everything designed is dashed.
Stage 3 of 5
Build: configuration and customizations
- BA move · to reach the next stage
- Built custom fields and ADVPL patches so items could be tracked in the 2–4 units of measure the client used, where the ERP supports two. Specified the remaining customizations for the development team.
- Shop floor
- Modeled in the system as six zone-level shop floors, physical and virtual warehouses, and inspection points.
- Systems and data
- Four TOTVS Protheus modules configured in the project environment — production planning and control, inventory, incoming-material quality and process quality — plus customizations in ADVPL. Configuration in place; master data still in spreadsheets that didn’t fit the ERP.
- Still unresolved
- Master data couldn’t be loaded yet.
- Artifacts
- System configuration, custom fields and patches, customization specifications.
- Stakeholders in focus
- Warehouse and inventory users; the development team.
- On the map
- Zone outlines and the shop-transfer flow turn solid: configured. A units-of-measure badge appears on Zone A storage.
Stage 4 of 5
Data and people: master data and key-user training
- BA move · to reach the next stage
- Built spreadsheet engines to clean and transform every master file into upload-ready data. Helped the client document the quality processes they’d never written down. Trained the key users to own the system and pass it on.
- Shop floor
- Processes documented and modeled to the ERP standard; quality tests defined with thresholds.
- Systems and data
- The same four modules, now loaded with master data: 1,000+ SKUs cleaned, with intangible items filtered out, plus bills of materials, machines, warehouse locations and quality tests.
- Still unresolved
- Not yet proven end to end.
- Artifacts
- Data transformation engines, upload files, updated data conversion plan, process documentation, training validation.
- Stakeholders in focus
- Key users and quality users.
- On the map
- The spreadsheets give way to “master data loaded”. Every quality gate shows a T for its threshold, and a key-user marker appears.
Stage 5 of 5
Proof: integrated system testing
- BA move
- Validated every scenario in the test guide end to end and delivered it updated.
- Shop floor
- The target design running end to end in the test environment. A work order moves through recording at each zone, then inspections, then stock, then transfer to a shop with its legal documents.
- Systems and data
- The four modules integrated in the test environment, with test scenarios and expected results.
- Still unresolved
- Data capture is still manual and adds workload for operators. This is an ERP design, not an MES.
- Artifacts
- Updated test guide with results.
- Stakeholders in focus
- Key users.
- On the map
- The end-to-end flow is heavy and solid. The module overlay shows which module owns which part, numbered markers show where data crosses between modules, and a standing note reads “Recorded by station coordinators, not machines”.
Which module owns what
| Module | Owns on the map |
|---|---|
| Production planning & control | Planning, work orders, bills of materials, recording at each zone (B–F), equipment and labor |
| Inventory | Zone A storage, warehouses and locations, units of measure, retail shops as virtual warehouses, transfers |
| Incoming-material quality | Inspection at Zone A receiving |
| Process quality | The quality gate at each zone |
Where data crosses between modules
- Material issued — from inventory into the production zones.
- Finished goods — from production back into inventory.
- Transfer + legal delivery document — from inventory to the retail shops.
- Accept / reject — incoming-material quality releases receipts to inventory.
- Operations → process quality — each zone’s gate gets production’s operations; pass or fail decides whether production continues.
- Walked the whole operation before designing anything — warehouse, all six zones, logistics and transport — and ran process workshops with key users to build an AS-IS model of the full flow, modeled in BPMN in Bizagi alongside the approved TO-BE as the project’s formal process-diagram deliverable.
- Ran the gap analysis fit-first: a standard workaround before a customization, a customization before a change request. Then I took the trade-off to the client as their decision — detailed recording per zone, or a simpler version covering quality at a broader level. They chose the detailed design.
- Built the units-of-measure extension myself — custom fields and ADVPL patches so items could be tracked in the 2–4 units of measure the client used, where the ERP supports two — and specified the remaining customizations for the development team.
- Turned spreadsheets into loadable master data with spreadsheet engines that cleaned and transformed every master file, 1,000+ SKUs among them, and helped the client document quality processes they had never written down.
- Wrote the operations manual — how the configured system is actually operated across all four modules — as the document the user training was delivered from.
- Trained the key users to own the system and pass it on, then validated every test scenario end to end and delivered the test guide updated with results.
A gap with no budget is still a gap. Name it, show the trade-off, and let the people who carry the cost make the call.
Results
- Four modules designed, configured, loaded and tested together — production planning and control, inventory, incoming-material quality and process quality.
- An MES-shaped need met inside a standard ERP scope, with no MES purchase. Recording per zone is done by station coordinators, not captured from machines.
- Shop-level stock accountability and legal delivery documents from one design decision: treating each retail shop as a virtual warehouse.
- Quality defined as measurable tests with thresholds, where it had been judged by eye.
What I’d do differently
- I’d estimate the extra recording time per shift before the trade-off meeting. The client chose the detailed design knowing it meant more manual recording. A number per shift would have made that decision concrete.
- I’d document the units-of-measure patches for whoever maintains the system through ERP updates. The patches let items carry 2–4 units of measure where the standard ERP supports two.
- I’d bring the gaps to the client as one picture with their trade-offs, instead of negotiating them one at a time.
Stack
TOTVS Protheus (production planning and control · inventory · incoming quality · process quality) · ADVPL · Process mapping (AS-IS / TO-BE) · BPMN modeling (Bizagi) · Fit/gap analysis · Master data migration · Operations manual · Integrated system testing