Integrations / MES scope assessment
Make execution events useful beyond the shop floor.
Assess which execution signals can support a shared operational answer while preserving their source, timing, and meaning. We review your deployment, event access, and workflow before defining the connection.
Start with the event the decision needs
An operation start, completion, hold, or quantity report can answer different questions. Identify which events exist in your MES deployment and how operators create them. A machine running signal alone may not identify the customer job; a completed quantity may require inspection before it counts as ready for the next step.
The scope should name the operational question, event types, order and operation keys, quantities, reasons, and timestamps required. Keep raw event meaning available for review. A summary that turns every machine stop into a job hold can create misleading exceptions when setup, planned downtime, and job changes have separate meanings.
| Event concept | Required context |
|---|---|
| Operation start | Job, operation, resource, event time |
| Quantity complete | Quantity unit, accepted state, partial or final |
| Hold | Reason, affected operation, current disposition |
| Labor or machine record | Job attribution and recording basis |
Assess the actual platform and access route
Record the product, edition, version, deployment, customizations, and interfaces approved by the administrator. An event feed, database view, and scheduled export each need their own validation and refresh expectations. Platform names alone cannot establish that the required signals are accessible.
Confirm who owns access, whether event history is retained, and how corrections are delivered. Ask whether orders arrive from the ERP with the same identifiers used in execution. If those keys change, document the mapping and its owner. Test the selected event path and document its limitations before relying on the combined view.
Preserve sequence, corrections, and source time
Events can arrive after they occur or be corrected later. Store event time separately from retrieval time, define timezone handling, and determine how duplicate or reversed records are identified. Test a reopened operation and a partial completion so a later correction does not leave the answer overstating progress.
Illustrative sample: the ERP shows WO-7302 released, and an execution feed shows operation 20 held at 10:10 shop time. A later correction changes the hold reason. The proposed answer should retain the current approved state and its source reference. If the next feed fails, it should say the hold was last recorded at that time and request confirmation.
Agree on the operational and access boundary
A visibility assessment should begin with read access and a reconciliation test against the floor. Include active, held, partially completed, and reworked jobs. Define when a missing event triggers a supervisor check and when a feed failure goes to the system owner. Record restrictions must apply to answers and alert recipients.
Any write-back into dispatch or execution is separate scope with explicit approval and tested effects. Bring your MES deployment details and one status disagreement to the conversation. Use the review to agree on the event path, validation cases, and refresh expectations. The ERP/MES architecture explains how execution records can be evaluated alongside business records.
Start with one operational question.
Tell us what your team keeps looking up. We will talk through the workflow and the systems behind it.
Book a 15-minute call