Wholesaler
- Order intake
- Field sales
- Dispatch
- Routes and delivery
Executive summary
1. What the review found
Three bottling sites and a wholesaler distributing their output to retail outlets. The work rests on connected objects: outlet, order, reservation, picking order, route, stock level, production order, material issue, purchase requisition, output and piece-rate settlement.
While those records live on separate carriers, each department reconstructs what happened only after the work is done. The problem is not missing features: the process has no carrier that survives the handover between departments.
A second layer is the three sites that grew independently. Operations that mean the same thing are named and run differently, so consolidated reporting is assembled by hand — and no shared platform can be built on any one site without unifying them first.
| Finding | Statement |
|---|---|
| Primary constraint | Stock is checked by hand at dispatch, so a commitment is made to the outlet before the actual stock level is known. |
| Recommended first step | Bring the three sites onto one state model, then build a single order record running from intake through to the purchase requisition. |
| Expected effect | Less re-keying, earlier detection of material shortage, a verifiable basis for piece-rate settlement. Quantitative effect is assessed after rollout. |
Areas reviewed
Bottling site
- Production
- Material store
- Finished-goods store
- Prepared bookkeeping
Purchasing
- Stock levels and thresholds
- Consumption norms
- Purchase requisitions
- Suppliers and lead times
Settlement and fleet
- Output
- Piece-rate pay
- Invoices and delivery notes
- Vehicles
Starting position
2. Baseline capture of current work
A review does not start with the target model. It starts by capturing how the work runs today. For each operation we record who performs it, how often, which carrier holds the data, and whether the same data is entered again. Everything else in this document rests on this table.
| Operation | Who performs it | Frequency | Where the data lives | Re-keyed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Taking the order at the outlet | Field sales representative | Daily, per outlet | Notebook, phone, personal spreadsheet | Yes — the order is rewritten when handed to dispatch |
| Stock check | Finished-goods storekeeper | Per order | Paper stock ledger | Yes — the stock level is quoted verbally |
| Building the route | Dispatch | Daily, for the next day | Paper route sheet | Yes — outlets and line items are rewritten |
| Production order | Production manager | Whenever a shortage is noticed | Paper form | Yes — quantity and material are copied from the store |
| Material issue | Material store | Per production order | Paper delivery note | Yes — the booking happens later than the event |
| Purchase requisition | Purchasing | On a shortage found after the fact | Internal memo | Yes |
| Invoice and delivery note | Prepared bookkeeping | Per order | Separate accounting software | Yes — order data is entered again |
| Piece-rate settlement | Foreman and bookkeeping | Monthly | Manual roll-up from production orders | Yes — output is interpreted a second time |
What follows from thisIn eight operations out of eight, the same data is entered again at least once. This is not a discipline problem: the order has no carrier that survives the handover between departments, so every downstream department creates its own copy.
Diagnostic panel
3. State of the operational system
The main losses do not occur inside individual operations. They occur between the wholesaler, the stores, production and purchasing — and when data from three sites is brought together.
45/100average process maturityManual reconciliation risk high
8points of re-keyingCandidates for removal
7critical data handoversNeed an owner
2priority pilot flowsOrder + stock
Process maturity
Expert assessment on a 0–100 scale. Higher means a more resilient process.
Structure of operational risk
Distribution of recorded observations by type.
16observations
40% — scattered data32% — losses at handover28% — unclear ownership
The numbers on this demonstration panel are illustrative. In a paid review the assessments are derived from interviews, a sample of working records, process observation and an agreed 0–100 scale.
Process map
4. Current process and handover points
The chain describes the typical path of work. It is a process model, not a snapshot of any particular client system.
Order
The outlet passes its requirement to sales or via its account.
Reservation
Goods are committed against the specific order.
Picking
The store assembles the order against a picking order.
Delivery
The order is distributed across driver routes.
Replenishment
A stock level crosses the threshold for a line.
Production
An order is raised with quantity and material required.
Material issue
The material store issues against the order.
Purchasing
A shortage becomes a requisition to the supplier.
Risks at the handover points
| Handover | What can be lost | Consequence | Priority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outlet → sales | Order contents, urgency, agreed price | The order is queried again; a commitment is made without knowing stock | High |
| Sales → dispatch | Line items, quantities, address and delivery window | Rewriting and transcription errors | Critical |
| Dispatch → finished-goods store | What exactly is reserved against which order | The same stock is committed twice | Critical |
| Store → production | The moment stock falls below its threshold | The order is raised after the shortage rather than before it | Critical |
| Production → material store | Material required by the order | Issue on a verbal request, booking after the fact | High |
| Material store → purchasing | The actual shortage and the lead time | Purchasing starts only once the line has stopped | High |
| Production order → payroll | Output, the workers involved, the piece rate in force | Piece-rate pay is recalculated by hand | Critical |
Risk heatmap
| Area | Likelihood | Impact | Detection | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stock committed to two orders | High | Critical | At dispatch | Critical |
| Order raised after the shortage | High | High | Late | Critical |
| Material booked retrospectively | Medium | High | At stocktake | High |
| Piece-rate pay from a manual roll-up | High | High | Monthly | Critical |
| The three sites diverge in practice | High | Critical | At consolidation | Critical |
Root causes
5. Why this happens
Re-keying, late shortages and the manual roll-up of output share the same structural causes.
A. The order has no carrierOrder, reservation, picking order, route and documents exist as separate facts. None of them survives the handover between departments intact.
B. Stock is not a controlling signalProduction is triggered by whoever notices the shortage. The threshold lives in someone’s head rather than in a rule, so the order is always raised late.
C. Three sites grew separatelyOperations that mean the same thing are named and run differently. While that holds, consolidated reporting is assembled by hand and no shared platform can be built on any one site.
D. Payroll re-interprets production dataOutput reaches settlement through a manual roll-up rather than from the closed production order. Every discrepancy is renegotiated each period.
Decision principleWhat needs automating is not the action but the state of the work: required data, the owner of the next step, and the transition condition. And before that, bring the three sites onto one process description — otherwise the divergence itself gets automated.
Responsibility zones
6. Who does what — and how much of it is moving data
Three sites grew separately, so the same work is done differently and in different departments. Below is where it is duplicated and where a role does not decide anything but passes data further down the chain.
| Role | What it does today | How much of that is moving data | Review observation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Field sales representative | Visiting and calling outlets, taking orders, entering them | A substantial share of the time is moving the order into the dispatch form | Entry moves into the outlet account; the role keeps winning new outlets |
| Dispatch | Checking stock, deciding what is possible, building the route | The decision rests on a verbally quoted stock level | Dispatch stops deciding what is possible and confirms what is already reserved |
| Finished-goods storekeeper | Stock ledger, issuing goods, reconciliation | Keeping the ledger duplicates data the order already holds | The role narrows to physical receipt and issue |
| Production manager | Spotting shortages, raising orders, overseeing output | Spotting is a manual walk of the store, not a system signal | The order comes from the stock threshold; the role keeps execution and quality |
| Purchasing | Reacting to internal memos, working with suppliers | The requisition is created after the fact and by hand | The requisition follows from the production order; the role shifts to lead times and terms |
| Foreman and bookkeeping | Manual roll-up of output for piece-rate settlement | Double interpretation of the same data | Settlement is taken from the closed production order |
The organisational conclusion stays with the companyThe review shows which part of the work is moving data and which part is deciding. What happens with the time freed up — redistributing tasks, retraining people or changing the structure — is the owner’s call. In this project the sales role was not cut: it shifted from entering orders to winning new outlets.
Incentives change with the processAs soon as an outlet starts ordering for itself, a classic percentage of turnover takes money away from the sales representative — this is usually where B2B self-service breaks. In this project the percentage was made degressive: high for a newly won outlet, declining as that outlet settles into routine. Without that change, sales works against the platform and no amount of technical work compensates for it.
Target operating model
7. States, boundaries and rules
Every order passes through explicit states. Each one defines an owner, the required data and the condition for moving on.
| State | Owner | Required information | Transition condition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Created | Outlet or sales representative | Outlet, line items, quantities, requested date | Order saved with validated price-list items |
| Reserved | System | Stock per line item, reservation against the specific order | Reservation confirmed; shortage placed in the purchasing queue |
| Picked | Finished-goods store | Picking order, actual quantities | Discrepancies recorded with a reason |
| On route | Dispatch and fleet | Route, driver, delivery window | Route built and handed to the driver |
| Delivered | Driver and outlet | Receipt confirmation, signed delivery note | Documents attached to the order |
| Closed | Prepared bookkeeping | Invoice, delivery note, payment received | Data passed to the accounting software |
Boundaries of automation
The system should determine
- Whether stock covers the specific order
- When a stock level has crossed its production threshold
- What material the order needs and what is missing
- Who performs the next action
- What data changed and when
The system should not decide
- Whether to ship to an outlet with overdue debt
- Whether to release a batch with a quality deviation
- Whether a price outside the approved price list applies
- Whether a piece rate is set
- Who owns responsibility for a site
Rules, deadlines and escalation target
A rule without a deadline and an addressee does not work. Below is the minimum set that makes exceptions visible the same day.
| Rule | Deadline | Escalates to |
|---|---|---|
| An order cannot be saved without a confirmed reservation or a shortage flag | At the moment of entry | Blocking rule, no escalation needed |
| A shortage on a line item enters the purchasing queue | At the moment of reservation | Purchasing |
| A production order is raised when stock crosses its threshold | Automatically, at the moment of the event | Production manager |
| Purchase requisition not confirmed | 1 working day | Head of purchasing |
| Production order closed without output and workers recorded | By end of shift | Foreman, then production manager |
| Order delivered, documents not attached | 2 working days | Prepared bookkeeping, then management |
| Picking discrepancy recorded without a reason | At order close | Storekeeper, then store manager |
Priorities and sequence
8. What to do and in what order
The sequence is built so that each stage delivers value on its own and does not require the next one to be finished.
| No. | Recommendation | Why now | Acceptance criterion |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | One process model for three sites | Without it a shared platform cannot serve all three plants | Identical operations are named and run the same way at every site |
| 2 | An order record from intake to close | Connects order, reservation, picking, route and documents | An order is traceable from intake to documents without rewriting |
| 3 | Stock as a controlling signal | Moves production and purchasing from reaction to rule | Order and requisition arise from the event, not from walking the store |
| 4 | Outlet account | Takes sales out of the order-entry chain | The outlet places its own order and sees invoices and delivery notes |
| 5 | A verifiable basis for piece-rate settlement | Removes the double interpretation of output | Settlement comes from the closed production order without a manual roll-up |
| Later | Route optimisation and demand forecasting | Only useful once stock levels are stable | Source data is reliable across an agreed horizon |
Do not start with the full platformFirst the shared process model and the order record. Extend once all three sites work stably to one model. The reverse order writes the divergence into the code.
Rollout plan
These durations are indicative for a demonstration sample. A real estimate is formed after access to the tools, record samples, roles and integration constraints.
| Stage | Duration | Outcome | Checkpoint |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capture and unification | 3–5 weeks | One state model, roles, required fields, exceptions | Owners at all three sites approve the model |
| Order core | 4–6 weeks | Intake, reservation, picking, route, documents | The pilot site runs with no paper step in the middle |
| Stock, production and purchasing | 3–5 weeks | Threshold, production order, material issue, requisition | Shortages are detected before the line stops |
| Outlet account | 2–4 weeks | Catalogue, ordering, status, invoices and delivery notes | Some outlets order without a sales representative |
| Settlement and reporting | 3–4 weeks | Piece-rate pay, synchronisation, consolidated reporting | The period closes without a parallel manual reconstruction |
Measuring the outcome
9. Metrics, reporting horizon and next step
This sample claims no numeric effect. In a real review the baseline is recorded first, then the metrics are compared after an agreed period of use.
| Metric | How it is calculated | How to capture the baseline | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Share of orders with no re-keying | Orders running from intake to documents without rewriting / all orders × 100 | A one-week sample of orders from the dispatch ledgers | Up |
| Time from order to confirmed reservation | Mean across the orders in the period | Timestamps in the ledger and on dispatch sheets | Down |
| Shortages found after the line stopped | Number of production orders raised after the shortage occurred | A quarter of production orders from the paper forms | Down |
| Variance between norm and actual material use | (Actual − norm) / norm × 100 per production order | Stocktake against the material-issue notes | Down |
| Manual corrections to piece-rate pay | Number of corrections after the period is closed | Roll-ups from the last three periods | Down |
| Time to close consolidated reporting | Working days from period end to an approved report across three sites | Measured across the last two periods | Down |
Horizon: from the order to the annual report
A review does not end at dispatch. Operational data has to reach management and annual reporting without being entered again — otherwise manual assembly reappears at the top level.
| Level | What must arrive without manual assembly |
|---|---|
| Shift | Output, closed production orders, picking discrepancies |
| Week | Stock by site, open shortages, route completion |
| Month | Piece-rate settlement, invoices and delivery notes, outlet receivables |
| Quarter | Cost by norm and actual, turnover by outlet and route |
| Year | Consolidated reporting across three sites and the wholesaler on one data model |
If the consolidated report is assembled by hand, the cause is almost never the reporting layer. It is that the sites’ operational data has not been brought onto one model.
Questions to settle before development
- Who may approve a shipment when stock is insufficient?
- What stock threshold triggers a production order per line item and per site?
- Which material consumption norms apply and who approves them?
- What data does the accounting software accept, and in what format?
- Which operations must keep working when connectivity drops in the store and on the floor?
- Who owns the price list and the discount rules for outlets?
Recommended next decisionCapture one complete order cycle at one site: a week of anonymised orders, stock ledgers, production orders and material-issue notes. Output: a data model, a role matrix, an exception list and the pilot scope.
This document demonstrates the structure and level of detail of the deliverable of the “Process review” service. It is based on the mechanics of a delivered, anonymised platform for beverage production and distribution, is not legal, tax or industry advice, and contains no confidential client information. Maturity scores are illustrative. Recommendations for a specific organisation depend on the capture, the jurisdiction, the contracts and the existing systems.