The failure points in the traditional NFe on-premise einvoicing architectures

2 road signs success points one way failure points the other 150x150 The failure points in the traditional NFe on premise einvoicing architecturesIn contribution on using the Brazil Nota Fiscal version 3.1 changes to change to cloud and managed services, Invoiceware International discusses the failure points in the traditional NFe architectures: the on-premise solutions.

It is important to understand that the traditional on-premise architecture wasn’t implemented for three specific IT reasons:

  • Corporate IT desired to centralize all financial processes on a common SAP ERP platform and replace local ERP solutions for consistency and controls.
  • Because many multinationals acquired companies in Brazil to grow – there were legacy systems already in place. When the SAP transition came into play – the standard operating procedure was to integrate the existing local system. This created an integration project that was often outsourced to local consultants.
  • A common SAP maintenance strategy is known as (N-1), this means that you stay one support pack back from the latest release. And often multinationals are many service packs behind because applying OSS notes to a highly customized and configured and global SAP system has its issues.

Combining all of that together and you get the following – three distinct silos of support and change management:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apply this to Day to Day support and constant Change Management to this infrastructure and you can see why many companies are looking to Managed Service providers to completely take this problem off of their list of things to manage going forward. Why try to manage something individually that is the same across all companies? And, cloud and managed service providers provide expertise, lessons learned and economies of scale.

The Problem with On-Premise approaches – three or more failure points with the architecture that more often than not each have their own support teams. When a problem occurs in any functional area, and issue becomes a “search and rescue” mission. Leading to three likely phone calls:

  • The local warehouse is calling because the DANFe is not showing up on the printer and they cannot ship
  • The local IT staff is calling the SAP COE as there is something wrong within the SAP system or the middleware and nothing is working
  • Or the data is not correct and there is something they are having difficulty reconciling during the closing of the books – the local finance team needs to ensure that what is posted in SAP and what is provided in the SPED reports is accurate. The penalties are too large to get this step wrong.

When you consider the issues and the overall cost to support three components, you can see why companies are looking to use the Brazil NFe version 3.1 upgrade to consider managed service providers that implement, monitor and maintain all three components as a complete end to end solution.

With the operational and audit issues at hand, wouldn’t it be nice to pick up the phone and call one expert, rather than going on “search & rescue” missions to find and fix the problem every time there is an error?

 



Related Posts


Comments are closed.