Transforming ERP processes in mechanical engineering without overhauling the entire system

How a modular ERP enables new processes and systems without constantly having to adapt the core ERP system.

A new process is to be introduced. The design department needs a closer connection to the ERP system. Manufacturing needs to feed data back from the MES. Or a new digital service needs to be integrated. From a business perspective, the requirement sounds manageable. Technically, however, half the system landscape depends on it. 

In mechanical and plant engineering, as well as in equipment and apparatus manufacturing, ERP, CAD/PDM, MES, planning, and other applications are closely intertwined. Anyone changing a process must therefore often take multiple systems into account. How can this be achieved without having to rebuild the entire system every time?

There is no universal rule. However, a clear division of roles is helpful for process design:

• ERP Core: Central business processes and master data that are required on an ongoing basis and company-wide.
• Industry-Specific Functions: Requirements that arise directly from manufacturing and industry-specific processes.
• CAD/PDM and MES: specialized tasks related to design and production-related processes.
• Planning and Variant Configuration: Functions for specific planning or configuration requirements.
• Analytics, IoT, or AI services: additional digital scenarios that specifically expand the existing process landscape.

To determine a specific requirement, ask yourself three questions: Is the function needed on a permanent basis and company-wide? Does it belong, from a technical standpoint, to a specialized design, manufacturing, or planning process? And what information must it exchange with the other systems? This approach allows the assignment to be justified based on the process itself, rather than hastily opting for another modification to the core ERP system or an additional application.

What matters, therefore, is not so much the number of applications used as their clear role within the overall process

One option is to consolidate data exchange through a central integration layer. This layer connects the ERP core, industry modules, and specialized applications via APIs and events, rather than setting up a separate point-to-point interface for each system pair.

When a part is modified, the CAD/PDM system remains responsible for the design data. Through the defined integrations, the updated information is made available in ERP and MES for material requirements planning, procurement, and manufacturing. The change is thus accounted for across system boundaries without consolidating these tasks into a single application.

New requirements can thus be added incrementally via modules, apps, or connected services without fundamentally altering existing core processes each time.

It’s especially worth taking a look at your existing system landscape if several of these situations occur regularly:

• New process requirements repeatedly lead to adjustments to the ERP system.
• It takes a great deal of effort to seamlessly integrate engineering, ERP, and manufacturing.
• Specialized applications are in place but are difficult to integrate into existing workflows.
• Existing customizations complicate changes, testing, or releases.
• New digital applications regularly lead to new integration projects.

These situations do not automatically mean that the existing ERP landscape is poorly designed. However, they do provide a reason to review your own architecture based on the questions mentioned above.

If you add another application for every new requirement, you risk trading an ERP core that’s difficult to modify for a system landscape that’s just as hard to manage.

To prevent this from happening, interfaces, dependencies, and responsibilities must be clearly defined. This includes cross-system testing, coordinated releases, and binding architectural principles.

Modularity, therefore, is no substitute for good process management.