Industries
Built for food and beverage companies — inventory reconciled by hand, and a close that waits on a physical count.
Inventory sits in one system, the general ledger in another, and by the time COGS is calculated it is already describing last month, not this one. Close usually waits on someone walking the floor with a clipboard, because the systems will not agree without a physical count to referee them.
What this usually looks like
company delivery historyfounder-asserted
company delivery historyfounder-asserted
last reviewedTrust and security
| The problem | What it actually costs | Where we answer it |
|---|---|---|
| Inventory and the general ledger hold different numbers for the same stock, and COGS is calculated from whichever one somebody trusted that day. | A margin figure that is wrong until someone corrects it by hand, weeks after the decision it should have informed. | Reconciliation & close |
| Close cannot start until someone finishes a physical count, because nothing else in the system settles the disagreement between inventory and the ledger. | A close that runs on however long the count takes, not on a schedule anyone can commit to. | Data Engineering & Analytics |
| A larger distributor, retailer or co-pack partner asks how batch, lot and access data are handled across your systems, and putting together an accurate answer takes longer than it should. | A vendor questionnaire answered from memory instead of from a written access model. | Trust and security |
We have built invoice and inventory reconciliations, and automated month-end close processes, across internal systems, databases and systems of record.
company delivery historyfounder-asserted
Our engineers’ backgrounds include audit work at a Big Four firm across the hotel, food and beverage industries, and process audit.
past employment of individual engineers, not AS DataWorks client workfounder-supplied
The discipline is the same regardless of plant count: least-privilege access during an assessment, a tested rollback before anything changes, a written plan before the work starts, and a documented handover at the end — published in full at Trust and security.
Built for
- Food and beverage manufacturers and distributors with 15 to 500 employees in the United States.
- Inventory and general-ledger numbers that disagree, and a close that depends on a physical count to settle it.
- A real deadline: a distributor’s or retailer’s vendor-risk questionnaire, an audit finding, an acquisition, or a system nobody has tested a recovery plan for.
- A buyer who wants the plan, the risk register and the cost in writing before committing to either us or the project.
Not a fit
- You need a food-safety certification, an FDA or USDA audit, or the compliance opinion itself. That needs a specialist auditor, not us — we build and document environments that stand up to that review.
- You run a single plant or location on one system with nothing to reconcile — there is no problem here for us to solve.
- You operate as a franchise or co-pack site running entirely on a parent company’s or franchisor’s platform — that platform’s owner is the right fit, not us.
- Your only driver is "the board wants a cloud strategy" with no operational problem underneath it. The assessment will probably tell you to stay where you are, and we will still charge for it.
Where food and beverage work continues
The two pages every food and beverage buyer needs before booking a call.
Start with the assessment, not the migration.
Book an assessment call30 minuteswith the engineer who would scope the work[PLACEHOLDER: written-summary turnaround, not yet committed]