Skip to content
ceKapsys
Schedule Meeting
Schedule Meeting
All case studies
Case Study · Warehouse Automation for RMG

The ERP was world-class. The bridge to the warehouse floor was missing.

A LEED-certified garment manufacturer ran a full Oracle ERP — and still lost hundreds of working hours a year to manual stock recording and end-of-day reconciliation. We found the gap, mapped it, and closed it. Recovered impact: at least $175,000 per year.

LEED-certified factory Oracle ERP retained Engagement since 2018 RMG · Bangladesh
The gap, in one line
Warehouse floor
no verified bridge
Oracle ERP
Records entered hours — sometimes days after the physical movement. The ERP showed yesterday's warehouse, not today's.
The situation

"Do we need software?" was never the question. They already had world-class software.

On paper the operation was modern: certified buildings, established export relationships, a full Oracle ERP running the factory. In practice, from inventory management to warehouse control, critical work was still done by hand — stock movements written on paper or in spreadsheets, then keyed into the ERP later.

Working hours that belonged to production planning and buyer servicing were being spent counting, re-counting and reconciling. When we began in 2018, the real question was simply: why is the gap still open?

Architecture · Before

Flow 1 — The manual layer between floor and record

An ERP is only as accurate as the data entering it. Between the physical warehouse and the digital record sat a human layer: observe a movement, write it down, key it in later. Every step introduced risk.

01The broken bridge

How goods actually reached the system of record.

Physical movement Stock-in, stock-out, measurement on the floor
observe & write
Paper & spreadsheets Manual capture, held until data entry
hours — sometimes days later
Oracle ERP Orders, requisitions, inventory records
DelayThe ERP showed yesterday's warehouse. Requisition and allocation decisions ran on stale data.
DiscrepancyQuantities and approvals didn't always match floor vs. system — and nobody could say which was true.
InvisibilityWhen a variance appeared, no verified trail showed its origin. Investigations cost more hours than the errors.
Our approach

Six months of gap analysis before a single line of code

Most vendors pitch a product in week one. We didn't — because we didn't yet know what the product needed to do. We spent six months inside the operation, auditing the flow end to end.

  1. 01
    Every stock-inHow goods physically entered the warehouse versus how and when they entered the ERP.
  2. 02
    Every stock-outIssuance to production lines, and exactly where quantities drifted from records.
  3. 03
    MeasurementsWhere fabric and trims were measured, by whom, and how those figures were captured.
  4. 04
    ApprovalsWho signed off on movements, and how that approval actually reached the system.
  5. 05
    Order requisitionsThe full chain from requisition to fulfilment — and where it went dark.

If your team is still reconciling the warehouse against the ERP at the end of the day, you don't have an ERP problem. You have a verification problem.

Architecture · After

Flow 2 — A verification layer, wired into the ERP you already own

With the gap mapped, we built a custom tool with one uncompromising job: record and verify every single in and out at the moment it happens, at the point where it happens — then connect it directly to Oracle. Nothing was ripped out.

02The closed loop

Capture and verify at the source, sync in near real time.

Physical movement Captured at the point of action
at source
Verification layer Records + verifies every in & out on the spot
near real time
Oracle ERP Same system of record — now trustworthy
Approvals travel with the movementNothing enters or leaves without an accountable record attached.
Discrepancies surface immediatelyWith a verified trail showing exactly where each one originated.
Architecture · Data

Flow 3 — Five movement streams, verified before they hit the record

The audit named exactly where physical reality and ERP records diverged. Each of those streams now resolves at the point of action, so the ERP's own reports finally became reliable.

Stock-in
Stock-out
Measurements
Approvals
Requisitions
Verification layer Verify · timestamp · attach approval
Oracle ERP Live, trackable, trusted records
The results

At least $175,000 in additional annual revenue

Once every movement became trackable and verified, the gains compounded — and came not from buying more software, but from closing the last mile between the floor and the system of record.

$175K+
Additional revenue per year, from recovered capacity, reduced discrepancy losses, and faster, more accurate order fulfilment.
Measured vs. pre-automation baseline
↺
Recovered working hours redirected from manual recording and reconciliation to production and buyer-facing work.
1:1
Requisitions and order planning now run on live, verified numbers instead of stale end-of-shift records.
Engagement

How a lasting fix gets built

A serious diagnostic phase is what separates a durable fix from another unused system. Timelines vary with factory size and process complexity.

MONTHS 1–6

Gap analysis

End-to-end audit of stock-in, stock-out, measurements, approvals and requisitions — floor vs. ERP.

BUILD

Custom verification tool

Purpose-built for how this warehouse actually operates — not a generic product.

CONNECT

Wire into Oracle ERP

ERP retained as system of record; fast floor adoption because nothing was replaced.

RESULT

Measure the impact

Verified movement trail makes recovered hours and reduced variance measurable against baseline.

For other RMG factories

If your ERP figures "need checking" before anyone acts on them, the same gap is almost certainly open.

The fix is rarely a new ERP. It's a verification layer, purpose-built for how your warehouse actually operates, connected to the system you already own. The signs are consistent across the industry:

ERP stock figures that "need checking" before anyone acts
Recurring, unexplained variances vs. physical counts
Working hours spent on reconciliation, not production
Requisition delays because nobody trusts the live numbers
FAQ

Questions factory owners ask

What is warehouse automation for RMG factories?
Software and verification systems that capture, record and track every warehouse movement — stock-in, stock-out, measurements, approvals and requisitions — automatically at the point of action, rather than through manual entry. In RMG factories it typically works alongside an existing ERP rather than replacing it.
We already use an ERP. Do we still need this?
Often, yes. An ERP manages records; it doesn't verify that physical movements match those records. If your team manually enters warehouse data into the ERP, the gap in this case study very likely exists in your factory too.
Did the factory have to replace its Oracle ERP?
No. The custom verification tool was connected to the existing Oracle ERP. The ERP stayed the system of record — the new layer simply ensured the data reaching it was verified and real-time.
How long does a project like this take?
Here, six months of gap analysis preceded the build, because the goal was to solve the real problem rather than sell a generic product. Timelines vary with factory size and process complexity, but a serious diagnostic phase is what separates a lasting fix from another unused system.
Can the results be independently measured?
Yes — that's the point of a verified movement trail. Because every in and out is recorded and trackable, gains in recovered hours, reduced discrepancies and fulfilment speed can be measured against the pre-automation baseline. In this engagement, the measured revenue impact was at least $175,000 per year.
Automation Hub

Close your factory's ERP gap.

An ERP investment only pays off when the data inside it reflects the warehouse floor. If you're losing hours to manual inventory work — or you suspect your ERP numbers can't be fully trusted — the gap is findable, mappable and fixable.

Book a gap-analysis consultation

Under a non-disclosure agreement, the client's name and the internal name of the solution can't be shared. The process, findings and results above are exactly as they happened.