For most warehouses running mobile WMS solutions, Wi-Fi instability is not a hypothetical edge case. It is a daily operational variable. The question is not whether your connectivity will be perfect. The question is what happens when it isn’t.

An offline-capable warehouse management system (WMS) for Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central helps warehouse teams continue picking, receiving, put-aways, and inventory counts even when wireless connectivity is unavailable. For operations that depend on mobile barcode scanning, this capability can significantly reduce downtime and improve inventory accuracy.

Why warehouse Wi-Fi is harder than it looks

Warehouses are difficult radio frequency environments. Metal racking, forklifts, concrete walls, and high ceilings all interfere with wireless signal propagation. Facilities that were designed before mobile WMS became standard often have coverage gaps that are expensive to remediate. Coverage that looks adequate on a heat map can perform very differently when a forklift is parked in an aisle, when a loading dock door is open, or when a team of workers is clustered in a single area during a cycle count.

Add to this the increasing density of connected devices competing for access points (handheld scanners, tablets, label printers, mobile computers, and IoT equipment), and what looked like sufficient bandwidth during a site survey can become unreliable under real production conditions.

Infrastructure improvements help, but they take time, require capital, and do not solve every scenario. A warehouse in a leased facility may have limited ability to install additional access points. A multi-site operation may have well-covered locations and poorly covered ones. A distribution center that processes high volumes in a compressed window simply cannot afford to wait for IT to troubleshoot a coverage issue before shipments go out.

Any serious warehouse management system needs to have an answer for this. And not all of them do.

The problem with “online-only” WMS design

Some warehouse management solutions assume the device is always connected. Every scan triggers a live transaction. Every lookup calls the server. Every posting requires an active session. When that works, it works fine. But when connectivity drops, even briefly, the consequences can be significant.

Workers may get error messages mid-task and lose their place in a multi-step pick or receiving flow. Partial transactions can leave inventory in an ambiguous state. A pick started but was not committed, a receipt was scanned but not posted. Workers learn workarounds quickly. They wait. They restart. They write things down and enter them later. These workarounds introduce the exact errors that a WMS is supposed to prevent.

Some solutions offer what might be called “graceful degradation” under poor connectivity, where the app stays open and queues data locally, but the user experience becomes unreliable and error-prone. The distinction matters: there is a significant difference between a system that tries to stay operational when connectivity drops and one that is genuinely built to operate offline from the start.

Offline-first WMS for Business Central warehouses

The right approach flips the model. Rather than requiring a constant connection and struggling to cope when it’s lost, an offline-first WMS stores the data it needs locally on the device and syncs with the ERP when connectivity is available. Workers perform their tasks continuously, including picks, put-aways, receipts, counts, and shipments, without depending on a live connection at the time of the transaction. When the device reconnects, data syncs automatically. The warehouse floor keeps moving.

This is not the same as simple caching. A well-implemented offline WMS synchronizes full transaction data to the device, intelligently resolves conflicts when multiple workers operate in the same area, and maintains a consistent view of inventory state across sessions. The sync mechanism needs to be reliable and transparent so that warehouse supervisors and ERP administrators have confidence in data integrity.

How Warehouse Insight and WMS Express handle offline operations

This is exactly the architecture that both Warehouse Insight and WMS Express, from Insight Works, are built on. Both applications store data locally on the mobile device and support full offline operation, including picking, receiving, put-aways, inventory counts, and other core warehouse tasks, without requiring a live connection to Dynamics 365 Business Central at the moment of each transaction. When connectivity is restored, transactions are automatically synced back to Business Central.

For operations teams, this has practical consequences that go well beyond avoiding downtime. Workers in low-signal areas can complete their tasks without interruption. Cycle counts in dead zones do not have to be rescheduled or handled on paper. Loading dock receiving does not stall when a door is open, and the signal is weak. The warehouse operates as designed, regardless of what the wireless environment is doing at any given moment.

Warehouse Insight is the full-featured solution for mid-market and larger operations, supporting complex warehousing configurations, including bin management, lot and serial number tracking, license plating, wave planning, custom workflows via the Application Designer, and a broad add-on catalog. WMS Express provides core receiving, picking, and counting functionality at no cost and serves as an effective starting point for operations new to mobile WMS or working with simpler setups.

Both are compatible with the rugged Android mobile devices that warehouses typically run, including purpose-built scanners from manufacturers like Zebra, Honeywell, and Datalogic. These are not consumer smartphones. They are devices designed to handle drops, dust, temperature extremes, and all-day scanning under production conditions. When you pair reliable hardware with an offline-capable WMS, you eliminate an entire category of operational risk.

What this means for distributed and multi-site operations

For companies running multiple warehouse locations, offline capability is especially important. Not every facility has the same IT maturity or infrastructure investment. A company’s primary distribution center may have excellent wireless coverage; a secondary facility or a third-party warehouse may not. An offline-capable WMS performs consistently across all of those environments without requiring infrastructure to be brought up to a uniform standard before the system can go live.

It also simplifies phased rollouts. Teams can be brought online in stages, and operational continuity does not depend on every access point being perfectly configured before the first scan happens.

How to evaluate offline WMS solutions for Business Central

If your organization is currently evaluating warehouse management systems for Business Central, or if you are reconsidering a solution that has caused problems in the past, connectivity resilience is worth probing specifically. The questions to ask include:

• Does the application store transaction data locally on the device, or does it require a live connection for each scan?
• What happens to an in-progress task if the device loses connectivity mid-flow?
• How does the sync mechanism handle conflicts when multiple devices have been operating offline?
• What is the data integrity model? How do you know that what is on the device matches what posts to Business Central?

Not every solution answers these questions the same way. The distinction between an offline-capable system and one that is merely tolerant of brief interruptions is significant, and it becomes visible quickly once a system is live on the floor.

Frequently asked questions about offline WMS

How ArcherPoint can help

ArcherPoint by Cherry Bekaert works with manufacturers and distributors across the country who are navigating the very same operational challenges. We have deep experience implementing Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central with warehouse management solutions for clients whose environments range from well-connected modern facilities to older buildings with significant infrastructure limitations. We understand that no two warehouse configurations are alike, and we take time to understand yours before recommending an approach.

If unreliable warehouse Wi-Fi has been a recurring frustration, or if you are building a business case for a more resilient WMS implementation, we would be glad to talk through your situation. Reach out to us and let’s start the conversation.

A well-run warehouse does not stop when the signal drops. With the right architecture, it never needs to.

The post When Warehouse Wi-Fi Fails: How Offline WMS Keeps Business Central Moving appeared first on ArcherPoint.

At ArcherPoint by Cherry Bekaert, we’ve found that Monday.com provides an effective platform for managing this balance. Supporting both executive-level project governance and Agile team execution helps organizations maintain visibility, accountability, and momentum throughout the implementation lifecycle.

Why Hybrid ERP implementations deliver better results

ERP implementations are complex because they span multiple workstreams with fundamentally different needs. In most implementations, holistic thinking stops at the preliminary conversations; it rarely extends to how the project is actually run. Instead, this mindset should be utilized throughout project delivery to avoid consequences in other departments. For instance, if a change to inventory is made without consulting finance, what is the downstream impact on the GL? Using Monday.com to improve cross-department visibility helps ensure these impacts do not fall through the cracks.

A waterfall approach gives you a detailed phase-gate timeline but does not easily accommodate change. An agile approach gives you flexibility but lacks anchor points for leadership to track progress against the budget and timeline. Hybrid gives you both. You apply the waterfall methodology for major phases, gate reviews for go/no-go decisions, and milestone dates. You run agile in each of these phases, letting SMEs “sprint” through their deliverables iteratively. This gives the team autonomy to adapt as they learn.

The trick is having a platform that can hold both views without creating two separate systems. This is where Monday.com comes into play.

Building a Hybrid ERP project framework in Monday.com

Creating the executive-level ERP Waterfall board

When building your Monday.com board, start with a high-level board that serves as the backbone. This backbone is your waterfall board (Figure 1). It will be used with your steering committee to represent phase and milestone progress.

You create groups for each major ERP phase:

• Discovery
• Design
• Build
• Test
• Deploy
• Hypercare

Within each group, add items that reflect key milestones and next phase gate reviews. Use the timeline column to map dependencies and durations. Add a status column for approvals with tags like Not Started, In Progress, Pending Approval, and Approved. Ensure that this board stays lean – no more than 50 items at most. The intent is to lack granularity and speak at a high level. This board will be your source of truth for the “big picture”. It’ll answer the question every executive asks: Are we on track?

A helpful tip: Set up automations for your key decision makers to mitigate approval delays.

Managing requirements and sprints with an Agile delivery board

Now let’s build our Agile board (Figure 2). Create a separate board that breaks down your requirements into categories, and label it ‘requirements’ or ‘user stories’. For example, these categories might read: Finance, Inventory, POS, Hospitality, Warehousing, and Data Migration. Each category will include a set of items to be addressed.

We recommend the following columns at a minimum within this board:

• Task: This lists out the requirements
• Sprint: Sprint 1, Sprint 2, Sprint 3, etc.
• Timeline: Broken down into 3–4-week time blocks
• Hours or Story Points: Effort assigned for each requirement
• Whether you choose hours or story points will depend on the style your client prefers. Hybrid means adaptable. The cookie-cutter approach doesn’t work for every project.
• Status: TBD, Ready, In Progress, Complete, Client in Review, and Accepted

Once the board is set up, you can start assigning what requirements can be met within the 3–4 week time block. Both parties must agree upon this assignment. The SMEs who are doing the configuration, testing, and documentation are on the agile board. Collectively, we run through requirements from start to finish within these sprint cycles. Throughout the project, we will measure velocity using these data points.

Taking the next step

Successful ERP project management requires both structure and flexibility. Organizations need executive-level visibility into milestones, budgets, and risks, while also enabling project teams to adapt as requirements evolve. A hybrid methodology provides that balance, and Monday.com offers a practical way to manage both perspectives within a single platform.

Contact ArcherPoint by Cherry Bekaert to learn how we can help with your Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central implementation, upgrades, and updates.

In a future article, we’ll explore how to connect these boards, measure project velocity, and use data-driven insights to keep ERP implementations on track.

The post Combining Agile and Waterfall for ERP Implementation Success with Monday.com appeared first on ArcherPoint.

Last month, I sat down to complete my self-evaluation. I’ve been through some version of this exercise for more than two decades across multiple companies. As I stared at the screen, I realized something uncomfortable: I was going through the motions.

The competency frameworks didn’t reflect how I actually spend my time. I was scrambling to recall accomplishments from eight months earlier, and I found myself writing for an audience rather than honestly reflecting on my development.

Then I went looking for my goal worksheet from earlier in the year. It had disappeared during a system migration. And the most revealing part? I felt relieved.

That reaction told me everything I needed to know.

The question I couldn’t stop asking

Across multiple companies, I’d seen the same pattern repeat: annual goals that get set and forgotten, competency frameworks disconnected from real work, year-end scrambles to reconstruct accomplishments, and ratings that feel more performative than developmental.

The intentions behind these systems are usually good. Organizations want fairness, growth, retention, and meaningful feedback. But somewhere between intention and execution, the process breaks down.

If even people who care deeply about development experience performance management as administrative overhead, the problem isn’t motivation. It’s the system’s design.

Managers are overloaded. Documentation becomes reactive. Development conversations happen too infrequently to create real change. Over time, we normalize the dysfunction because everyone assumes this is simply how performance management has to work.

The paradigm inversion

Traditional performance management collects evidence about you. Managers observe your work, form impressions, and eventually synthesize those impressions into a rating. You discover where you stand when someone else tells you.

What if we inverted that model?

What if evidence was collected by you throughout the year? What if you tracked your own trajectory weekly instead of reconstructing it annually? What if the final rating wasn’t a surprise, but a confirmation of what you already knew?

That changes the evaluator’s role completely. Instead of acting as the sole judge of your performance, managers become calibrators who ensure consistency across teams and peers. That’s a fundamentally different relationship.

The system I built starts with a simple principle: every year begins at “Developing.” Not because someone lacks capability, but because performance must be demonstrated through documented evidence over time.

That shifts the psychology completely.

In the traditional model, people assume they already own a rating and spend the year defending it. In the new model, you build a case for the level you want to achieve, one piece of evidence at a time.

If you go a year without documenting meaningful evidence, you can’t realistically defend anything beyond “Developing.” That’s not punishment. It’s accountability. And it eliminates surprises.

What AI makes possible

A human manager cannot realistically provide weekly developmental attention to every person on their team. The math simply doesn’t work. So most organizations default to quarterly or annual conversations that are too infrequent to meaningfully shape behavior.

AI changes that equation.

I built a system that lets people collect evidence weekly from email, calendars, meeting transcripts, completed work, and personal reflections. An AI assistant helps analyze that evidence against development dimensions, identify patterns, highlight gaps, and track trajectory over time.

The AI isn’t replacing human leadership. It’s enabling a level of continuity and attention humans alone can’t consistently provide at scale.

And the constraints of building it taught me something important: the hardest problems weren’t technical. They were behavioral.

How do you make reflection feel useful instead of burdensome? How do you encourage honest self-assessment without turning it into performative reporting? Those are design problems, not coding problems. Increasingly, I think those are the problems that matter most in enterprise AI.

The accountability shift

This experience reinforced something I’ve argued throughout this series: you cannot delegate your career development any more than you can delegate your AI transformation.

Both require ownership.

The evidence collection isn’t primarily for managers. It’s for you. The trajectory tracking isn’t for HR reporting. It’s for self-awareness. Conversations with your advisor become better because you’ve already done the work of reflection before entering the room.

That changes everything.

Your Week 27 challenge: audit your own development

This week, take an honest look at how you currently approach your own growth.

1. What evidence actually exists?

If your annual review happened tomorrow, what documented evidence could you immediately point to? Not what you remember doing — what evidence actually exists?

2. Who is doing the synthesis?

Are you actively tracking your own growth and trajectory, or are you expecting someone else to notice your development and explain it back to you later?

3. What would weekly attention change?

Imagine spending 10 minutes each week documenting meaningful work, lessons learned, and growth signals. What patterns might emerge that annual reflection completely misses?

4. Where are you outsourcing responsibility?

Career development is deeply personal work. Where have you been waiting for someone else to own something that ultimately belongs to you?

The bottom line

I sat down to complete a self-evaluation and felt relieved when I couldn’t find my goals. That reaction revealed how disconnected the system had become from genuine development.

So instead of improving the form, I started rethinking the model itself.

What emerged was a fundamentally different approach: evidence collected by the individual, continuous reflection rather than annual reflection, AI supporting awareness and synthesis, and managers serving as calibrators rather than surprise evaluators.

The deeper lesson extends beyond performance management.

You cannot delegate your own growth. Not in your career. Not in AI adoption. Not in personal transformation.

The people who benefit most from AI won’t be the ones waiting for systems to change around them. They’ll be the ones building awareness, capability, and accountability before anyone tells them to.

This post is part of my “AI Over 40” series. It first appeared on LinkedIn: AI for the Over 40 [Week 27]: Building What Didn’t Exist: An AI Career Development Partner

Read more AI and Copilot blogs.

The post AI for the Over 40 – Week 27: Building Your Own AI Career Development Partner appeared first on ArcherPoint.

Understanding status templates in Boltrics 3PL

Boltrics 3PL extends Business Central with configurable workflow tools that help 3PL providers manage warehouse processes more consistently. Status templates control how warehouse documents, such as receipts, move through operational stages while supporting automation and validation at each step.

Using status functions to automate warehouse workflows

In this walkthrough, Daniel Feltham-Lauzon from ArcherPoint by Cherry Bekaert demonstrates how linked processes and status functions can automate actions during status changes. The video shows how functions can validate required information, such as sender code, billing code, external document number, and arrival date/time, before allowing users to continue through the workflow.

Configuring validations and automations in Boltrics WMS

The session also explores the Boltrics function library and demonstrates how warehouse teams can:

• Add mandatory field checks
• Copy quantity values into order quantities
• Update dates automatically
• Associate functions with status changes
• Create more standardized warehouse processes

Together, these tools help improve data quality, support workflow automation, and create more reliable warehouse execution processes within a 3PL ERP software system.

If you’re evaluating Boltrics 3PL or looking to better understand workflow automation in Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central, this overview provides practical insight into configuring operational controls and validations for real-world 3PL environments.

Watch the video below to learn how status templates and functions work in Boltrics 3PL.

Interested in learning more about logistics technology and 3PL best practices? Explore additional insights on our blog by browsing posts tagged with Logistics.

The post How to Create Status Templates and Functions in Boltrics 3PL & Business Central appeared first on ArcherPoint.

The rising cost of retail returns

Retailers are facing a steady rise in return volumes, driven by several converging trends:

• Rapid growth in eCommerce and omnichannel shopping
• More lenient and customer-friendly return policies
• Increased product variety and size/fit uncertainty
• Changing customer expectations around convenience and speed

In some retail segments, especially apparel and online-first categories, return rates can reach 20–30% or higher. Even in more traditional retail environments, the volume and complexity of returns are increasing.

The impact extends far beyond the transaction itself. Product returns affect:

• Margin: Processing, restocking, discounting, or liquidating returned goods reduces profitability
• Inventory accuracy: Returned items may not be immediately visible or correctly reallocated in inventory systems
• Labor costs: Handling returns requires time, training, and coordination across store and warehouse teams
• Customer satisfaction: Delays, friction, or inconsistent policies can damage the customer experience

What makes returns especially challenging is that their true cost is often underestimated. The initial refund is just the beginning—the downstream operational impact can be significant.

Why traditional returns management falls short

Despite the growing importance of returns, many retailers still rely on fragmented, manual, or inconsistent processes to manage them.

Common challenges include:

• Lack of real-time visibility into returned inventory
• Disconnected systems between stores, warehouses, and eCommerce platforms
• Inconsistent return handling across locations
• Delays in processing and restocking items
• Limited insight into why products are being returned

These gaps create inefficiencies that ripple through the business. A returned item might sit in a backroom for days before being processed. Inventory systems may not reflect item availability, leading to missed sales opportunities. In some cases, items are unnecessarily discounted or written off because they cannot be reintroduced into stock efficiently.

In short, when returns are treated as an afterthought, they become a hidden cost and source of operational friction for the organization.

How technology is transforming retail returns management

Advances in data integration, automation, and analytics are enabling leading retailers to rethink returns management by bringing it into the same operational and analytical framework as the rest of the business.

Smarter return policies: Retailers are moving away from one-size-fits-all return policies. Instead, they are using data to tailor policies based on product category, customer behavior and purchase history, channel (online vs. in-store), and return frequency. This allows retailers to strike a better balance between customer convenience and cost control—reducing unnecessary returns while maintaining a positive experience.

Reverse logistics optimization: Returns are fundamentally a supply chain problem as much as a store problem. Leading retailers are investing in more efficient reverse logistics processes, including faster routing of returned goods to the right destination, improved triage (restock, refurbish, liquidate, or discard), and better coordination between stores and distribution centers. The goal is to recover value as quickly as possible and minimize the time inventory is “out of circulation.”

Data-driven insights: One of the most powerful shifts is the use of analytics to understand the root causes of returns. Retailers are asking which products have the highest return rates and why: Are returns tied to quality issues, sizing inconsistencies, or misleading product information? Are certain stores or regions experiencing higher return volumes? By answering these types of questions, retailers can address upstream issues, such as product design, merchandising, or fulfillment errors, before they lead to returns.

Automation and technology: Automated return authorization workflows and real-time inventory updates upon return help retailers streamline returns processing and reduce manual effort. These capabilities reduce delays, improve accuracy, and ensure returned items are quickly made available for resale when possible.

Why returns processing require cross-functional collaboration

Just like shrinkage, returns sit at the intersection of multiple functions, including store operations, supply chain and logistics, finance, and customer experience. Historically, these areas have operated independently, leading to fragmented processes and inconsistent outcomes.

Leading retailers are breaking down these silos by aligning teams around shared goals, particularly in inventory visibility, processing speed, and margin protection. When returns are managed as an end-to-end process rather than a series of disconnected steps, retailers gain better control over costs and outcomes.

Why people and processes still matter

Even with advanced technology, the effectiveness of a returns strategy depends heavily on execution at the store level. Store associates play a key role in accurately processing returns, assessing product condition, ensuring items are routed correctly, maintaining clear communication with customers, and more. Without proper training and standardized processes, even the best systems can break down.

Retailers that succeed in optimizing returns invest in clear return procedures, training that emphasizes consistency and accuracy, and tools that make it easy for employees to follow the right steps.

Consistency across locations is especially important for multi-store retailers, where variability can quickly lead to inefficiencies and customer frustration.

Turning returns into a strategic advantage

The most forward-thinking retailers are no longer asking, “How do we manage returns?” Instead, they are asking, “How can returns help us improve the business?” When approached strategically, returns can provide valuable insights that drive improvement across the organization. Retailers can use returns data to:

• Identify and fix product quality issues
• Improve product descriptions and merchandising
• Optimize inventory placement and allocation
• Refine pricing and promotion strategies
• Strengthen customer relationships through better experiences

In this way, returns shift from being a cost center to a source of continuous improvement.

Creating a smarter retail returns strategy

Returns are not going away; in fact, they are becoming more central to retail operations every year.

The retailers that succeed will be those that recognize returns as a controllable operational lever, not just a downstream cost. By improving visibility, aligning processes, and leveraging data, they can reduce inefficiencies and recover more value from every return. This starts with a few key priorities:

• Gaining real-time visibility into returned inventory across all channels
• Integrating systems to ensure consistency between stores, warehouses, and e-commerce
• Standardizing processes to reduce delays and errors
• Using data to identify and address the root causes of returns

Ultimately, the goal is not to eliminate returns; rather, it’s to manage them more intelligently.

Contact ArcherPoint by Cherry Bekaert to learn more about how you can manage returns more effectively to reduce costs, improve inventory utilization, and enhance the customer experience.

The post Retail Returns Management: From Cost Center to Competitive Advantage appeared first on ArcherPoint.

The Dynamics 365 Business Central community, comprising developers, project managers, and consultants, collaborates across platforms to share valuable insights. At ArcherPoint, we greatly value their dedication and expertise. To ensure widespread access to this technical knowledge, we created Developer Digest.

Extensions, Events, and BC architecture

When Microsoft moved from C/AL to AL, it changed the architecture to an event-driven one. Developers no longer modify the base code. Instead, they use extensions to customize BC. This keeps the base code separate and easier to maintain. Plus, it makes software updates easier on everybody.

Or so many were led to believe.

As Matt Traxinger points out, while the current BC development environment is better than the C/AL model, it still has some architectural… um… features that could use some improvement.

Read the latest installment of his series on BC software development, Events Were Supposed to Save Us, for his perspectives on the subject.

Switch AI models in BC v28

New in BC is the ability to switch AI models from the Agents page. Beginning with Business Central 2026 Wave 1 (version 28), GTP-5.3-chat will be the default AI model used by Microsoft on Agents and Managed AI service.

Stefano Demiliani discusses this new feature and provides guidance for optimizing its use.

Currently, users can select between GPT-5.3-chat and GPT-4.1-latest. This lets you select the best model for your requirements.

As Demiliani points out, “You should use GPT-5.3-chat for every task that requires conversation, brainstorming, and tasks where you want a natural human-like interaction. GPT-4.1-latest is instead ideal when dealing with heavy tasks, complex data parsing, or workloads that require the model to hold huge volumes of reference documentation.”

Check out his blog, Dynamics 365 Business Central: new model choice in Agent definition, to learn more.

Improve Business Central performance with Index Tuning

Also new in version 28, BC now allows indexes to be turned on and off at will. This capability can significantly improve Business Central performance by reducing the time required for SQL INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE commands.

Duilio Tacconi offers an in-depth look at how this new capability can be effectively utilized in his blog, Index Management with Dynamics 365 Business Central 2026 Wave 1.

AI: From concept to adoption

There is plenty of chatter about AI: the technology, the models, the uses, etc., etc.

Tharanga Chandrasekara offers his thoughts on the difference between TALKING about AI and ADOPTING it.

In his recent blog, he makes the comment, “Concept is interesting. Tech is exciting. Neither one changes anything by itself. Adoption is what changes something.”

Until the principles of AI are actually put to use, though, the promise of AI will never materially affect how you work.

Read his blog, From Talking About AI to Adopting It: Why I Am Writing This Series, to see more.

Are you interested in Dynamics NAV and Business Central development? Check out our collection of NAV/BC Development Blogs.

Read “How To” blogs from ArcherPoint by Cherry Bekaert for practical advice on using Microsoft Dynamics NAV and Dynamics 365 Business Central.

The post Dynamics Business Central / NAV Developer Digest – Vol. 555 appeared first on ArcherPoint.

In this guide, we will provide a clear, practical roadmap to the essential ERP best practices for electronics manufacturers. These are the strategies that leading companies use to transform operational uncertainty into a decisive competitive advantage.

Why generic ERPs fail in electronics manufacturing

The unique problems of the electronics manufacturing industry demand a specialized solution. While many businesses can succeed with a standard Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system, the specific pressures of this sector reveal the shortcomings of a generalized approach.

The pitfalls of a “one-size-fits-all” solution

A generic ERP system for electronic manufacturing might handle basic accounting and high-level inventory, but it lacks the granular functionality your business needs to thrive. It cannot effectively provide multilevel bill of materials (BOM) management for electronics that enables the deep, component-level traceability required for quality control. It also cannot handle the high frequency of engineering change orders (ECOs) that define the industry.

Volatile supply chains, strict compliance, and rapid innovation

The current industry landscape is fraught with risk due to higher material costs, adherence to increasingly stringent regulations, and other factors. These situations present significant business risks that a generic system is ill-equipped to mitigate. A fragile and disconnected electronics manufacturing supply chain management structure can mean you lack the agility to respond to these pressures effectively.

Best practice #1: achieve total control with advanced bill of materials management

The BOM is the foundational blueprint for every product you create. For electronics manufacturers, a single BOM can contain thousands of parts. Mastering bill of materials management is the first and most critical step toward gaining operational control.

Integrating engineering change orders (ECOs) in real time

In an industry driven by constant innovation, ECOs are a part of daily life. The best practice is to use an ERP that automatically propagates changes from the engineering BOM to the manufacturing BOM, procurement records, and production schedules in real time.

Managing component life cycle and planning for obsolescence

A modern ERP system for electronic manufacturing should actively track component life cycle data (such as Active, NRND, or Obsolete statuses). This capability enables your procurement team to proactively identify at-risk parts and find qualified alternatives, preventing an obsolete component from halting the production line.

Unifying your BOM with procurement and production data

When your BOM exists in a spreadsheet, disconnected from purchasing and production, errors are inevitable. The best practice is a unified system where the BOM serves as the single source of truth. This solution directly drives purchasing requirements based on real-time inventory and production demand, eliminating manual data entry and reducing the risk of costly purchasing mistakes.

Best practice #2: ensure bulletproof traceability and compliance

For electronics manufacturers, traceability is a requirement for market access, customer safety, and brand reputation. An effective ERP provides the framework to make this compliance seamless and audit-proof.

Building a foundation for granular lot and serial number tracking

A robust ERP should automatically capture and store data, enabling you to perform surgical recalls and quickly identify the root cause of any quality issue.

Automating data collection for compliance 

The administrative burden of managing compliance documentation for standards like RoHS and REACH can be immense. An ERP system that stores supplier compliance certificates and automates the generation of audit reports ensures you always meet compliance requirements and trusted industry standards. 

Best practice #3: build a more resilient and agile supply chain

True electronics manufacturing supply chain management resilience rests on a foundation of real-time data and control. An integrated ERP connects your BOM and production data to the broader supply chain, giving you the visibility needed to become more agile.

Gaining real-time visibility into warehouse operations

You cannot manage what you cannot see. The best practice is to utilize an ERP with integrated warehouse management (WMS) functionality. This provides a real-time, accurate view of stock levels, bin locations, and material movements, from receiving to final shipment. This visibility is essential for solving warehouse management challenges before they disrupt operations.

Turning best practices into reality with the right partner

Understanding these ERP best practices for electronics manufacturers is the first step. The next is implementation with the help of a strategic partner who knows how to configure the software to meet your business’s unique challenges.

At ArcherPoint, we specialize in tailoring Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central to meet the complex demands of the electronics industry. We help you implement these best practices to gain the control, visibility, and agility you need to thrive.

If you are ready to move from operational uncertainty to a position of strength, contact us today for a consultation.

The post ERP Best Practices for the Electronic Manufacturer appeared first on ArcherPoint.

Well…maybe not. Do you have customizations in your environment? If the answer is no, sure, relax, sip your coffee, and enjoy those updates. Take a look at the release document every six months to review the new features, and you’re all set.

However, for companies running customizations, integrations, or third-party ISV solutions, every major Business Central release introduces potential risk. New functionality, deprecated objects, and application changes can affect custom code and business processes in unexpected ways. Allowing updates to proceed without preparation may lead to production issues, such as missing or malfunctioning custom functionality.

The good news is that with the right preparation, these updates can become a predictable part of your operational rhythm rather than a source of disruption.

To avoid panicked calls from your coworkers after a Business Central update, follow these essential steps:

Sign up for Notifications and monitor Microsoft update emails

In the Admin Center, select Notification Recipients. Add one or more Recipients to receive the Notifications. Microsoft will send an email containing:

1. A description of any detected custom code breakages
2. The date that the update becomes available

Note that Microsoft’s email will not include a solution for the breakage, nor will it detect issues in code interacting with ISV applications.

Delay the update

After receiving the email, extend the update date for the Business Central Production environment as far as possible to allow time for preparation. Microsoft will allow customers to delay the update for approximately five months. In the Admin Center, you can view your current version, the next expected version, and the transition dates to the new version. The dates can be modified as needed up to the final deadline set by Microsoft.

Address code breakages

Contact your Microsoft partner or your internal development team to resolve any issues. These breakages can include deprecated objects/table fields, ISV add-on failures, or external integration. Microsoft’s email won’t identify ISV or external integration issues, but a developer can spot warnings in the code. Reach out to your ISV partner to address code breakages in ISV applications.

Create a Sandbox environment

 Set up a copy of the Production environment and update it to the latest major version for testing purposes.

Perform User Acceptance Testing (UAT)

Have key users test areas where code breakages occurred. It’s also wise to test major functional areas such as Shipping, Receiving, paying people, and getting paid.

Plan for go-live

Once testing is complete, schedule a Go-Live weekend with the internal team. In the Admin center, set the date for the Production update. ISV apps will automatically update when the BC version update occurs.

By following these steps, you can ensure your SaaS updates are as painless as possible. While testing every six months may seem daunting initially, developing a consistent cadence and plan will make the process more manageable and far easier than the lengthy updates of the past.

Find out how ArcherPoint can help

The shift to SaaS has changed how organizations think about ERP upgrades. Instead of large, disruptive projects every several years, Business Central customers now operate in a continuous update environment. That approach delivers easier access to innovation, security improvements, and new functionality, but it also requires a disciplined approach to testing and governance.

Organizations that establish a repeatable process for reviewing release notes, testing customizations, validating integrations, and preparing users for new releases can turn updates into a strategic advantage rather than a recurring headache. The goal to ensure that your ERP environment remains stable, secure, and aligned with the needs of the business.

If you need help managing Business Central updates, ArcherPoint by Cherry Bekaert can help take the stress out of updates that might adversely affect your custom code or ISV products. We offer Business Central SaaS Stay Current Assurance Plans that streamline the upgrade process and keep you current with Business Central.

Learn more about Microsoft’s major and minor update cycles for Business Central SaaS environments.

And be sure to download our Business Central SaaS Update Readiness Checklist, which will help guide you through the update process.

The post Business Central SaaS Updates: What Changes When Microsoft Controls the Calendar? appeared first on ArcherPoint.

Not a simple feature comparison. I wanted a decision framework that could help me determine which tool fit which scenario — and when a hybrid approach made the most sense.

A few years ago, that kind of research project would have required hiring a consultant, dedicating weeks to evaluation, and spending money I probably couldn’t justify.

Instead, I produced a 400-line strategic framework in about three hours using tools I already subscribe to.

But the most important lesson wasn’t about the AI platforms themselves.

It was about what I did before I asked AI to research anything.

The mistake most people make

When people discover “Deep Research” or “Research Mode” in AI tools, they usually do what feels natural:

They type a question and hit enter.

Fifteen minutes later, they get a polished report that sounds impressive but doesn’t actually help them make better decisions.

“Compare Power Automate and Zapier.”

AI will happily generate pages of comparisons: features, pricing, pros and cons, integrations, and limitations.

It will also be almost useless.

Because comprehensive isn’t the same thing as actionable.

The quality of research output is determined by the quality of the research question. Most people skip the question-design step entirely.

Think before you research

Before I touched Research Mode, I opened a conversation in Gemini’s Thinking Mode and asked:

“Can you help me design a deep research prompt to explain when to use M365 Copilot, Power Automate, Zapier, or a hybrid approach?”

What followed wasn’t an answer.

It was a collaborative design session.

The AI pushed me to clarify:

• Who is the audience?
• What decisions are they trying to make?
• What constraints matter?
• What would make this useful instead of merely comprehensive?

That conversation transformed a vague request into a structured 300-word research prompt with:

• Clear comparison dimensions
• Specific output requirements
• Audience framing
• Decision criteria
• Real-world context

That five-minute design conversation completely changed the quality of the research that followed.

The AI Olympics, upgraded

Back in Week 2, I introduced the idea of the “AI Olympics” — running the same prompt across multiple platforms to compare strengths and weaknesses.

I’m still doing that today. The difference is that now I’m testing frontier models with research-grade prompts instead of basic queries.

I ran the same prompt through Claude, ChatGPT, and Gemini in their deep research modes simultaneously.

The differences were substantial.

ChatGPT produced the most exhaustive output: highly detailed, technically thorough, and packed with specifications. But it buried practical guidance under hundreds of lines of information.

Claude produced the most usable framework. It generated memorable metaphors, decision heuristics, and language that would actually work in executive conversations.

Gemini landed somewhere in between, with a strong architectural structure but a more academic tone.

The lesson was important:

The most capable model is not automatically the most useful one.

The right output depends on the audience and the purpose.

The synthesis layer

Here’s where things became really interesting.

After reviewing all three outputs, I asked Claude a simple question:

“Can you improve your report using the strengths from Gemini and ChatGPT?”

That’s it.

What came back was better than any single model’s original output.

Claude combined its accessible framing with ChatGPT’s technical depth and Gemini’s structured organization. The result felt less like using one AI system and more like managing a collaborative research team.

That’s the evolved version of the AI Olympics.

Not just comparison. Synthesis.

The amplification effect

The math here is difficult to ignore.

Traditional approach:

• Hire consultants or analysts
• Spend weeks researching
• Build comparison frameworks
• Deliver recommendations

Estimated cost: thousands of dollars and multiple weeks.

What I actually did:

• 5 minutes designing the prompt
• 20 minutes running research across platforms
• 15 minutes evaluating outputs
• 20 minutes synthesizing the best pieces

Total time: roughly 90 minutes.

But the biggest shift wasn’t speed. It was accessibility.

I wouldn’t have done this research at all before AI because the effort required would have outweighed the perceived value.

AI didn’t just accelerate existing work. It made previously unrealistic work possible.

What the research actually produced

The final framework generated a genuinely useful decision architecture.

One example framed the three tools as a “three-speed gearbox”:

• Copilot handles unstructured intake and analysis
• Power Automate manages deterministic business logic
• Zapier acts as the connective bridge between systems

Another heuristic became instantly memorable:

“If the CFO would fire you for getting it wrong, use Power Automate.”

The framework also clarified the characteristic risk of each platform:

• Copilot risks hallucination
• Power Automate risks brittleness
• Zapier risks governance and data leakage

Those aren’t abstract insights.

They’re practical decision shortcuts I can use in client conversations immediately.

The technique, simplified

After 26 weeks of experimentation, the process has become surprisingly straightforward:

1. Think before you research

Use standard chat or thinking mode first. Collaboratively design the research question before launching deep research.

2. Run the AI Olympics

Use the same prompt across multiple frontier models. Different systems still excel in different areas.

3. Evaluate for usefulness, not completeness

The best research output is the one your audience can actually use.

4. Synthesize the strengths

Treat models like collaborators. Combine what each does best.

5. Iterate

The first output usually isn’t the final one. Refinement matters.

Your Week 26 challenge

This week, pick a research question you’ve been avoiding because it felt too large, expensive, or time-consuming.

Before using Research Mode, spend 10 minutes designing the question collaboratively with AI.

Clarify:

• Audience
• Decision needed
• Constraints
• Desired output
• What “useful” actually means

Then run the research.

If you have access to multiple platforms, compare the outputs. Notice which system best serves your actual purpose.

Because the real breakthrough isn’t that AI can research for you.

It’s that AI can help you think more clearly about what’s worth researching in the first place.

The bottom line

Twenty-six weeks ago, I thought AI might help with small productivity improvements.

Now I’m producing strategic research that previously would have required resources I simply didn’t have.

But the transformation isn’t the technology itself.

It’s the system that’s emerging around it:

• Thinking before researching
• Comparing across platforms
• Synthesizing strengths
• Designing intentionally instead of prompting casually

The techniques from earlier weeks are starting to compound into something larger.

Not just better prompts.

A better way of thinking.

This post is part of my “AI Over 40” series. It first appeared on LinkedIn: AI for the Over 40 [Week 26]: Think Before You Research

Read more AI and Copilot blogs.

The post AI for the Over 40 – Week 26: AI Research Strategy Starts Before You Research appeared first on ArcherPoint.

Understanding status templates in Boltrics 3PL

Boltrics 3PL extends Business Central with logistics-specific workflow functionality that allows 3PL providers to define how warehouse documents move through operational processes. Using status templates, organizations can create configurable process flows that control the lifecycle of receipts, shipments, and other warehouse activities.

How status sequences control warehouse workflows

In this walkthrough, Daniel Feltham-Lauzon from ArcherPoint by Cherry Bekaert demonstrates how status templates and sequences help users track warehouse progress through statuses such as New, Confirmed, Arrived, Unloaded, In Progress, Received, and Services. The video also explains how warehouse teams can use status logs to review document history and understand how previous and next status logic controls workflow movement.

Configuring warehouse process flows in Boltrics WMS

The session covers several important configuration options in Boltrics WMS, including:

• Setting up receipt status sequences
• Configuring editable and non-editable statuses
• Using delete-blocked statuses and status security
• Allowing posting and invoice run settings
• Logging status changes for warehouse traceability
• Testing how a receipt moves through the full status flow

Together, these tools help 3PL providers standardize warehouse operations, improve process visibility, and maintain better control over execution within a 3PL ERP software system.

If you’re evaluating Boltrics 3PL or looking to better understand how workflow automation and warehouse process control work within Business Central, this overview provides practical insight into configuring operational status flows for real-world logistics environments.

Watch the video below to learn how status templates and sequences work in Boltrics 3PL.

Interested in learning more about logistics technology and 3PL best practices? Explore additional insights on our blog by browsing posts tagged with Logistics.

The post How to Create Status Templates and Sequences in Boltrics 3PL & Business Central appeared first on ArcherPoint.