Why Distribution Leaders Are Rewriting Their ERP Requirements Mid-Evaluation
Three months into their ERP evaluation, the VP of Operations at a growing industrial distribution company had an uncomfortable realization: the requirements document their team had spent weeks creating was leading them toward the wrong system.
The document was thorough—87 pages detailing hundreds of specific requirements organized by module, priority, and business area. It covered everything from inventory management and order processing to financial reporting and warehouse operations. The evaluation committee had worked hard to create what they believed was a comprehensive assessment framework.
But as demonstrations progressed and they saw what modern platforms could actually do, the limitations of their approach became clear. They’d been asking vendors whether systems could replicate their current processes, not whether better approaches existed. They’d focused on features rather than outcomes. They’d specified solutions instead of defining problems.
Most critically, they’d built requirements around legacy system constraints they’d lived with for so long they’d stopped recognizing them as constraints. Like prisoners who couldn’t imagine life outside their cells, they’d designed requirements that would simply rebuild their current limitations in new software.
This realization is becoming increasingly common among distribution leaders evaluating ERP systems. The most sophisticated buyers are recognizing mid-evaluation that their initial requirements reflect outdated assumptions and limited imagination about what’s possible. They’re pausing to rewrite requirements—not because they were careless in initial definition, but because the evaluation process itself reveals opportunities and approaches they hadn’t previously considered.
Understanding why this happens and how to avoid wasting months heading in the wrong direction can save distribution businesses from selecting systems that perpetuate limitations rather than enabling transformation.
The Requirements Trap: How Good Intentions Lead Wrong Directions
The impulse to create detailed requirements documents before evaluating ERP systems is understandable and, in many ways, admirable. It reflects diligence, thoroughness, and respect for the significance of the decision. But the traditional requirements-driven approach contains several hidden traps:
Replicating Current State Instead of Designing Future State
When teams sit down to document ERP requirements, they naturally start with what they know—their current processes and systems. The requirements become, essentially, a specification for replicating existing functionality:
“System must allow manual price overrides on quotes” “System must support our current product code structure” “System must generate the ABC123 report exactly as we currently produce it” “System must allow inventory transactions without lot numbers for these product categories”
Each requirement seems reasonable in isolation. These are things the business does today. The new system obviously needs to support them, right?
But this approach assumes current processes are optimal—or at least should be preserved. In reality, many current processes exist because legacy systems forced workarounds. They’re accommodations to system limitations, not thoughtfully designed best practices.
The manual price override process exists because the current system can’t handle dynamic pricing rules.
The complex product code structure evolved because the old system had limited attribute fields.
The ABC123 report is generated the way it is because that’s what legacy reporting tools could produce, not because it’s the ideal information format.
Inventory transactions without lot numbers are allowed because disciplined lot tracking was too cumbersome in the old system.
By codifying these workarounds as requirements, teams inadvertently specify that the new system must perpetuate the same limitations. They’re essentially saying, “We want expensive new software that works exactly like our old, inadequate software.”
Feature Lists Instead of Outcome Definitions
Traditional requirements documents focus heavily on features: Does the system have this capability? Can it perform that function? This feature-centric approach seems logical but misses what actually matters—business outcomes.
Consider the difference between these requirement styles:
Feature requirement: “System must support multi-warehouse transfer processing with approval workflows and serialized tracking.”
Outcome requirement: “We need to efficiently balance inventory across our five distribution centers to minimize stockouts while avoiding excess inventory at any location. Currently, transfers require 3-4 days due to manual approval and paperwork. We need to reduce this to same-day or next-day execution.”
The feature requirement tells vendors what to demonstrate—a transfer transaction screen with approval routing and serial number entry. But it doesn’t explain the business problem or define success criteria. A vendor could demonstrate the required features while the underlying system still delivers poor outcomes.
The outcome requirement provides context about the actual business challenge and how success should be measured. It invites vendors to propose solutions that might be quite different from current approaches but deliver better results.
When requirements focus on features rather than outcomes, evaluation becomes a checkbox exercise—does the system have this capability?—rather than an assessment of whether it will actually solve business problems.
The Incumbent Advantage Bias
Legacy systems inevitably influence requirements in ways that give them unfair advantages:
Existing report structures become required outputs, even though better reporting approaches might exist.
Current workflow sequences become specified requirements, even though more efficient flows are possible.
Familiar terminology gets embedded in requirements, creating evaluation bias toward systems using similar language.
Known workarounds become normalized as necessary features, preventing consideration of solutions that eliminate the underlying problem.
Departmental compromises in current systems get codified as requirements, preserving political settlements rather than optimizing processes.
This bias is particularly insidious because it’s unconscious. Teams don’t realize they’re writing requirements that favor familiar approaches until they see genuinely different alternatives.
Stakeholder Negotiation Compromises
Requirements documents typically result from negotiations among stakeholders with different priorities and perspectives. The final document reflects compromises that may not represent optimal approaches:
Everyone gets something: Each department insists on requirements that matter to them, resulting in bloated specifications that no system optimally serves.
Controversial decisions get deferred: Rather than making hard choices about process standardization or business rules, teams include requirements that preserve current variations, preventing beneficial consolidation.
Political considerations influence priorities: Requirements get marked “must-have” based on stakeholder insistence rather than actual business importance.
Technical debt gets codified: Custom fields, manual processes, and system workarounds from the current environment become specified requirements for the new one.
The resulting document may represent organizational consensus, but not necessarily organizational best interest.
Premature Specificity
Many requirements documents specify implementation details far too precisely, constraining creative solutions:
“Quotes must be entered on a single screen with these specific fields in this layout” prevents consideration of wizard-driven or multi-step approaches that might be more intuitive.
“Inventory must be organized using this three-tier category structure” prevents exploration of whether alternative organizational schemes might work better.
“Order approval must follow this five-step process” prevents consideration of whether fewer steps with better business rules could achieve the same control with less delay.
This premature specificity shuts down innovation before evaluation even begins.
The Awakening: What Triggers Mid-Evaluation Realization
Distribution leaders typically recognize their requirements need revision when they encounter one of several catalysts during the evaluation process:
Seeing What Modern Platforms Actually Do
Legacy systems set expectations. If your current system requires ten screens and fifteen minutes to enter an order, that becomes your baseline assumption about order entry complexity. Requirements might specify, “Order entry should take no more than ten minutes.”
Then you see a modern platform where order entry is a single screen, much of the information is auto-populated based on customer and product selection, and the entire process takes two minutes. Suddenly the requirement seems unambitious.
Or you’ve always generated reports by exporting data to Excel, manipulating it, and creating charts. Your requirements specify robust export functionality. Then you see embedded analytics where insights are available instantly without exports, and you realize you’ve been asking for the wrong thing.
These revelations—seeing capabilities you didn’t know existed—trigger recognition that requirements are thinking too small.
Understanding Total Cost of Complexity
During detailed demonstrations, distribution leaders often realize that meeting their extensive requirements list requires massive customization, creating long-term costs they hadn’t considered:
Implementation timeline: Each custom requirement adds implementation time. What could be a three-month deployment becomes nine months.
Implementation cost: Customization is expensive. The implementation budget doubles or triples to accommodate all specified requirements.
Ongoing maintenance: Custom code requires ongoing maintenance, testing during upgrades, and specialized knowledge. Total cost of ownership increases dramatically.
Upgrade complications: Heavy customization makes future upgrades complex and expensive, often locking businesses into old software versions.
Vendor support limitations: When problems arise, vendors often can’t support heavily customized configurations, leaving businesses dependent on consultants.
This TCO awakening prompts questions: Are all these requirements really necessary? Could we achieve better outcomes with less customization by adapting processes to platform strengths?
Discovering Industry Best Practices
Modern cloud ERP platforms serve thousands of customers across many industries. They embody best practices refined across numerous implementations. When distribution leaders see these proven approaches, they often recognize that their requirements specify suboptimal processes:
“Our requirements document specifies our current order approval process with eight approval steps. But the platform’s standard workflow with intelligent business rules achieves better control with just two approvals. Maybe our detailed requirements were wrong.”
“We specified exactly how we calculate reorder points today, but the platform’s demand-driven replenishment algorithm considers factors we don’t currently account for and typically reduces both stockouts and excess inventory. Perhaps we shouldn’t force it to work our old way.”
“We required specific cycle count procedures that mirror our current approach, but the platform’s smart cycle counting based on movement velocity and value typically achieves better accuracy with less effort. Our requirement might have been counterproductive.”
This discovery—that proven best practices exist and differ from current state—challenges the assumption that requirements should simply specify current processes.
Recognizing Change Management Opportunities
Extensive requirements often preserve departmental variations, status quo compromises, and political settlements. Mid-evaluation, leaders sometimes recognize that ERP implementation provides opportunity to address these issues:
“We specified requirements that accommodate how five different warehouse locations do receiving differently. But maybe implementation is our opportunity to standardize on one optimal approach rather than building a system that perpetuates these variations.”
“Our pricing requirements preserve current decision rights where any manager can override pricing. But maybe we should use implementation to establish proper controls rather than building those weaknesses into the new system.”
“We required the system to support both old and new product naming conventions because we’ve never completed the cleanup. But implementation is our chance to finally standardize rather than paying to build a system that accepts our data quality problems.”
ERP implementation is one of the few times when organizations have leverage to drive changes that otherwise meet resistance. Recognizing this opportunity mid-evaluation prompts requirements revision to support transformation rather than status quo preservation.
Vendor Education About Alternatives
Good vendors don’t just demonstrate features—they educate buyers about better approaches. When vendors ask “Why do you do it that way?” and suggest alternatives, distribution leaders sometimes realize their requirements specify approaches that aren’t actually optimal:
“You require manual three-way matching for all invoices. But with good purchase order and receiving processes, the system can automatically match most invoices, flagging only exceptions for review. This reduces both processing time and errors.”
“Your requirements specify that pricing is maintained by product managers updating spreadsheets that get imported. But dynamic pricing rules in the platform can automatically adjust based on cost changes, competitor pricing, and inventory levels. You’d maintain rules instead of thousands of individual prices.”
“You want the system to accommodate your current allocation process where inventory is manually reserved. But available-to-promise logic can automatically allocate optimally across orders, locations, and customers based on business rules. It’s faster, more accurate, and doesn’t require manual work.”
These conversations reveal that requirements were written with limited knowledge of what’s possible.
The Revised Requirements Approach: Focusing on Outcomes
When distribution leaders recognize mid-evaluation that their requirements need revision, the most successful approach involves fundamental reframing:
Start With Business Problems, Not Current Solutions
Instead of documenting how things work today, define the problems you need to solve:
Problem statement: “Customer service reps can’t provide accurate delivery dates during order entry because they don’t have real-time inventory visibility across locations or inbound shipment status.”
This problem definition invites creative solutions. Maybe the answer is real-time multi-location inventory visibility. Maybe it’s available-to-promise logic that accounts for incoming inventory. Maybe it’s customer self-service portals that provide status directly. The requirement doesn’t prescribe the solution.
Compare to the traditional approach: “System must display on-hand inventory by location and show inbound PO quantities on the order entry screen.” This requirement specifies a solution without explaining the problem, limiting creative approaches.
Define Success Metrics, Not Features
Specify what outcomes you need to achieve:
Success metric: “Reduce average order processing time from 8 minutes to under 3 minutes while maintaining <0.5% error rate.”
This metric-based requirement gives vendors clear success criteria without prescribing implementation approaches. Different platforms might achieve this through different means—streamlined interfaces, intelligent defaults, automated validation, or other approaches. The requirement focuses on results.
Traditional requirements would specify “Order entry must be single-screen with these fields, auto-population of customer defaults, and real-time inventory checking.” This prescribes implementation details that may or may not achieve the actual goal.
Identify Constraints, Not Specifications
Distinguish between true constraints (things that genuinely cannot change) and preferences (things you do today but could do differently):
True constraint: “Must support FDA compliance requirements for lot tracking and recall management in pharmaceutical distribution.”
Preference incorrectly stated as requirement: “Inventory must be organized using our current category/subcategory/product structure.”
True constraints are typically regulatory requirements, contractual obligations, or fundamental business model characteristics. Most things teams initially classify as requirements are actually preferences that could change.
Being honest about what’s truly required versus what’s merely current practice opens the door to better solutions.
Prioritize Process Outcomes Over Feature Replication
Focus on end-to-end process performance rather than individual feature specifications:
Process outcome: “Quote-to-cash cycle time should be reduced from average 14 days to under 7 days, with less than 5% of orders requiring escalation or exception handling.”
This requirement addresses overall process performance. It invites solutions that might look quite different from current approaches but deliver better results. Maybe faster cycle time comes from automated credit checking, or streamlined approval workflows, or better customer self-service—the requirement doesn’t prescribe.
Traditional approach would specify detailed requirements for quote generation, pricing approval, order entry, credit checking, fulfillment, invoicing, and collection—essentially describing current process steps without questioning whether there’s a better way.
Include Scalability and Adaptability Requirements
Modern businesses need platforms that support future growth and change, not just current operations:
Scalability requirement: “Platform must support expansion from current 3 distribution centers to 10+ over next 5 years without requiring reimplementation or major architectural changes.”
Adaptability requirement: “System must enable business users to create custom reports and modify workflows without requiring IT assistance or custom coding.”
These requirements ensure you’re selecting platforms designed for growth and change, not just current state replication.
What Revised Requirements Look Like
Strong revised requirements documents look quite different from traditional specifications:
Requirements Document Structure
Business Context Section (replaces detailed current state documentation):
- Strategic objectives driving ERP investment
- Key business challenges to address
- Growth plans and scalability needs
- Competitive positioning goals
Problem Definition Section (replaces feature lists):
- Critical pain points in current operations
- Process breakdowns causing customer or cost issues
- Decision-making limitations from information gaps
- Growth constraints from system limitations
Success Metrics Section (replaces detailed specifications):
- Operational KPIs with target improvements
- Customer experience metrics
- Financial performance expectations
- User adoption and satisfaction goals
True Constraints Section (replaces hundreds of “requirements”):
- Regulatory and compliance mandates
- Integration requirements with committed systems
- Data migration non-negotiables
- Timeline and budget parameters
Desired Capabilities Section (replaces prescriptive specifications):
- Outcome-focused capability descriptions
- Problem statements inviting creative solutions
- Prioritization (must-have vs. nice-to-have)
- Examples of unacceptable limitations
Sample Revised Requirements
Traditional requirement: “System must support product categorization with 4-level hierarchy (division > category > subcategory > product), allowing multiple category assignments per product, with category-based pricing rules and reporting.”
Revised requirement: “We need to organize 50,000 SKUs in ways that support both operations (warehouse locations, supplier management, procurement) and commercial activities (pricing, promotions, reporting). Current 4-level category structure is inconsistent and limits reporting. We need flexible product organization that’s intuitive for users, supports multiple views for different purposes, and enables both operational efficiency and analytical insights.”
The revised version explains the business need, identifies the current limitation, and defines desired outcomes without prescribing implementation details.
Traditional requirement: “Order entry must include these 37 fields [detailed list], with these validation rules [detailed specifications], generating this output [exact format], and following this approval workflow [detailed process].”
Revised requirement: “Average order entry time is currently 8 minutes. Target is under 3 minutes while reducing errors from 2.1% to <0.5%. Approximately 70% of orders are routine (repeat customers, standard products, normal terms). System should streamline these while providing appropriate controls and information capture for complex orders. Customer service reps should be able to commit realistic delivery dates during order entry without post-entry verification.”
The revised version defines the problem (slow, error-prone entry), sets clear success metrics, acknowledges order variability, and identifies a key capability need without prescribing specific implementation.
Evaluation Criteria Revision
Evaluation scorecards should align with revised requirements:
Traditional evaluation: Each feature gets scored (0-5 points). Total score determines winner.
Revised evaluation:
- Strategic fit (30%): How well does platform support business objectives and growth plans?
- Problem solving (30%): How effectively does platform address key pain points?
- Outcome delivery (20%): What’s the likelihood of achieving target metrics?
- Implementation feasibility (10%): Can this be deployed in required timeframe with available resources?
- Total cost of ownership (10%): What’s the realistic 5-year TCO including implementation, operations, and opportunity costs?
This structure focuses evaluation on what actually matters rather than feature checklist completion.
How Cloud ERP Platforms Enable Requirements Evolution
Modern cloud ERP platforms are specifically designed in ways that make the outcome-focused requirements approach viable:
Built-In Best Practices
Cloud platforms serving thousands of customers across many industries embody refined best practices:
Proven workflows that reflect how successful businesses operate, reducing the need to specify detailed processes.
Intelligent defaults that work well for most businesses, eliminating thousands of configuration decisions.
Standard integrations for common business systems, removing the need to specify integration details.
Industry templates providing starting points based on proven implementations in similar businesses.
These built-in best practices mean you don’t need comprehensive requirements documents specifying every detail—the platform already embodies good approaches you can adopt and adapt.
Configuration Over Customization
Modern platforms provide extensive configuration capabilities that eliminate most customization needs:
Business rules engines allow defining complex logic without coding.
Workflow configuration enables process adaptation through visual tools.
Flexible reporting lets business users create custom reports without IT assistance.
Field customization accommodates business-specific data without database changes.
This configuration flexibility means you can adopt platform standards initially and refine based on learned experience without massive customization projects.
Continuous Evolution
Cloud platforms deliver regular enhancements that provide new capabilities over time:
Quarterly releases add features based on customer feedback and market needs.
Automatic updates deliver improvements without disruptive upgrade projects.
API extensibility enables adding capabilities through integrations rather than customization.
Platform evolution means capabilities unavailable today might be standard features next year.
This continuous improvement means you don’t need to specify every conceivable future requirement upfront—the platform evolves with your needs.
Rapid Implementation Enabling Learning
Cloud platforms can be implemented quickly, enabling learning-based approaches:
Fast deployment means you can get system running and learn from actual usage.
Phased activation supports starting with core capabilities and expanding based on experience.
Easy refinement through configuration allows adapting based on what you learn.
Low switching cost means initial decisions aren’t permanently binding.
This implementation velocity supports outcome-focused requirements—you can deploy, learn, and refine rather than trying to specify everything perfectly upfront.
Bizowie: Designed for Outcome-Focused Evaluation
At Bizowie, we’ve experienced countless customers arriving at mid-evaluation realizations that their initial requirements were leading them wrong directions. We’ve designed our platform and evaluation approach to support outcome-focused assessment from the start:
Problems We Solve, Not Features We Match
Rather than demonstrating features against your requirements checklist, we focus on understanding your business challenges and showing how Bizowie solves them:
Customer commitment accuracy: How we provide real-time visibility that enables reliable delivery date commitments.
Inventory optimization: How we balance availability with investment through intelligent replenishment and multi-location coordination.
Order fulfillment efficiency: How we streamline processing from entry through shipment while maintaining accuracy and control.
Profitability management: How we provide clear visibility into customer and product profitability to guide strategic decisions.
Scalability: How we support growth without requiring reimplementation or massive new investments.
This problem-solving focus shows how Bizowie delivers business outcomes, not just feature demonstrations.
Best Practices You Can Adopt
Bizowie embodies distribution best practices refined across hundreds of successful implementations:
Proven workflows for core distribution processes that work well for most businesses.
Industry templates providing starting points specific to distribution operations.
Standard integrations with common distribution-related systems (shipping carriers, 3PL providers, e-commerce platforms).
Intelligent defaults that eliminate hundreds of configuration decisions while still allowing customization where needed.
Clear documentation showing standard approaches so you can evaluate whether they meet needs before specifying custom requirements.
These built-in best practices mean you can adopt proven approaches rather than specifying detailed requirements based on current processes that may be suboptimal.
Transparent About Trade-offs
We’re honest about where Bizowie excels and where you might need to adapt processes:
Clear capability boundaries: We’re transparent about what the platform does well versus capabilities better served by specialized systems.
Process adaptation discussion: We’re upfront about where adopting platform best practices requires process change.
Integration options: We clearly explain where integrations make sense versus trying to force everything into single system.
TCO honesty: We provide realistic total cost of ownership including implementation, training, and ongoing operations.
This transparency helps you make informed decisions rather than discovering limitations after commitment.
Rapid Proof of Value
Bizowie’s quick implementation capability enables approaches that traditional platforms can’t support:
Pilot programs: Deploy for specific business units or product lines to prove value before full commitment.
Phased rollout: Start with core capabilities and expand based on demonstrated success and learned experience.
Iterative refinement: Launch quickly with standard configuration, then adapt based on actual usage rather than theoretical requirements.
Fast time-to-value: Typical implementations in weeks mean you start realizing benefits quickly.
This implementation velocity makes outcome-focused requirements viable—you can deploy, measure results, and refine rather than trying to specify everything perfectly upfront.
Clear Success Metrics
We work with customers to establish meaningful success criteria:
Baseline current state: Document where you are today on key metrics.
Define target outcomes: Set specific improvement goals for what matters most.
Track progress: Monitor metrics throughout implementation and after go-live.
Demonstrate value: Report transparently on results achieved versus targets.
This metric-driven approach ensures evaluation focuses on outcomes that matter, not feature lists that may or may not deliver business value.
Making the Mid-Course Correction
If you’re in the middle of an ERP evaluation and recognizing that your requirements may be leading you wrong direction, it’s not too late to correct:
Acknowledge the Issue
Be honest with your team and vendors: “We realize our initial requirements document may have been too focused on replicating current state rather than achieving optimal outcomes. We want to revise our approach.”
Most good vendors will welcome this evolution. It shows mature thinking and often leads to better solutions than trying to force systems to match potentially suboptimal specifications.
Rapid Requirements Revision
You don’t need to start completely over:
Extract the problems: Review initial requirements and identify the underlying business problems each was trying to address.
Define success metrics: For each problem area, specify how you’d measure whether it’s solved.
Identify true constraints: Separate genuine requirements from preferences that could change.
Prioritize ruthlessly: Distinguish must-haves from nice-to-haves.
Revise evaluation criteria: Align scoring with outcomes rather than feature matching.
This revision can typically happen in days or weeks, not months.
Re-engage Vendors
Share revised requirements with vendors already in evaluation:
Explain the evolution: Help vendors understand why you’re revising approach mid-process.
Request revised proposals: Ask vendors to propose solutions focused on outcomes rather than matching original specifications.
Allow creative responses: Invite vendors to suggest approaches that deliver required outcomes even if they differ from original requirements.
Facilitate comparison: Ensure all vendors respond to same outcome-focused requirements so proposals are comparable.
Good vendors will provide stronger proposals based on revised requirements than they could against the original feature lists.
Reset Internal Expectations
Help your evaluation team understand the shift:
Explain the rationale: Help stakeholders understand why outcome focus is better than feature matching.
Address concerns: Some team members may worry this creates risk or ambiguity. Address these concerns directly.
Revise evaluation process: Ensure scoring and decision criteria align with revised requirements.
Celebrate the insight: Frame this as positive evolution, not admission of error.
Conclusion: Requirements as Discovery Process, Not Specification Exercise
The traditional approach to ERP requirements—comprehensive documentation of detailed specifications before evaluation—reflects industrial-age thinking about systems procurement. It assumes you can fully specify what you need before understanding what’s possible, that current processes are worth replicating, and that transformation can be designed on paper before experiencing alternative approaches.
This thinking made sense when customization was the only path to functional software. If systems were blank slates requiring custom development to become useful, detailed requirements were necessary to guide development.
But modern cloud ERP platforms change this equation fundamentally. They arrive with sophisticated capabilities, proven workflows, and extensive configurability. The question isn’t “what do we need to build?” but “what proven capabilities should we adopt and how do we adapt them to our specific needs?”
This shift makes requirements development itself a discovery process. Initial requirements documents reflect current understanding and assumptions. But evaluation reveals capabilities you didn’t know existed, best practices you hadn’t considered, and opportunities you hadn’t imagined. Recognizing this and being willing to revise requirements mid-evaluation isn’t a sign of poor planning—it’s evidence of learning and mature thinking.
The most successful ERP evaluations are those where distribution leaders remain open to evolution, focus on outcomes rather than features, and select platforms based on business results rather than requirements checklist completion. These buyers recognize that the goal isn’t finding a system that matches their current state—it’s finding a platform that enables their future state.
If you’re mid-evaluation and recognizing that your initial requirements may be leading you wrong direction, you’re experiencing exactly what the most sophisticated buyers go through. The question is whether you’ll act on this insight—revising requirements to focus on outcomes—or continue down a path that leads to suboptimal platform selection.
The best ERP decisions come from buyers who treat evaluation as a learning process, not a specification-matching exercise.
Ready to Focus on Outcomes, Not Feature Lists?
Bizowie’s approach to ERP evaluation emphasizes understanding your business challenges and demonstrating solutions, not just matching feature requirements. We help distribution businesses discover what’s possible and select platforms based on business outcomes. Schedule a demo to experience an outcome-focused evaluation approach.
Bizowie is an enterprise cloud ERP platform that brings clarity and control to every aspect of your business. Our all-in-one platform delivers real-time visibility, efficient workflows, and an unmatched, seamless experience—designed for distribution businesses that understand ERP evaluation should focus on business transformation, not current state replication.