A parallel run compares selected outcomes in old and new processes for a defined period. It needs one authoritative route for real actions and explicit rules for any duplicate test entry. Reconcile identifiers, quantities and statuses, explain differences, and define an end gate. Running two applications indefinitely is not itself an acceptance method.
- Choose one authoritative route for real-world actions.
- Compare equivalent filters, timing and record definitions.
- Set a short evidence-driven end gate for the parallel run.
Define the comparison purpose
Choose the results whose correctness remains uncertain: available stock, open order status or completed-job counts. A parallel run should answer those questions rather than reproduce every screen in the old system. State the scope, time period and owners before users start entering similar records in two places.
Ask whether controlled replay or a reference export would answer the question with less daily effort. True parallel operation can increase workload and confusion. Use it only when its additional evidence justifies the burden, and ensure operators understand which entries are comparison records and which drive real work.
Make comparisons equivalent
Use the same effective time, location filters, status definitions and units. A difference between on-hand and available quantity may be expected rather than a defect. Document semantic differences before comparing totals, using the field dictionary and known scenario results to explain what each system is reporting.
Separate mapping issues, timing delays and genuine calculation discrepancies. Assign owners to investigate each category. Do not force numbers to agree by silently editing the new dataset; that can conceal the problem and make a later transaction fail when the hidden inconsistency resurfaces.
Work an illustrative dispatch comparison
Illustrative scenario: a distributor compares open dispatch orders in two environments over three operating days. The old report excludes cancelled orders, while the new view includes them by default. Reviewers align the filter and then find one real mismatch caused by a partial-dispatch status mapping.
The team corrects the mapping and reruns the affected scenario, preserving the original evidence. Customer notifications continue from only the authoritative environment. The three-day period is illustrative, not a universal recommendation; the useful duration depends on transaction diversity and the specific uncertainties being tested.
Define exception and end gates
Keep a queue of unmatched records and explain whether each difference is acceptable, resolved or still blocking. Set thresholds from essential business requirements rather than an arbitrary tolerance. For some workflows, one unexplained high-impact record matters more than a small percentage of overall matching totals.
Agree what evidence ends the run: key scenarios pass, important totals reconcile and operating owners understand remaining limitations. Extend only for a specified unresolved question. Otherwise duplicate activity can continue by habit, increasing staff effort without materially improving confidence or revealing new information.
Retire the comparison process
After sign-off, stop test entry, disable temporary connections and protect or remove comparison data according to approved policy. Confirm that users know the authoritative workflow going forward. Retain the reconciliation evidence and rules so future changes can reuse meaningful checks without restarting indefinite parallel operation.
Document lessons for additional locations or modules. EasyManageX sample listings do not establish parallel-run tooling or system equivalence. The candidate’s actual record semantics and your controlled operating design determine whether this technique adds useful assurance to the implementation rather than simply doubling work.
Your working checklist
- State the comparison question.
- Name one real-action authority.
- Control duplicate external side effects.
- Preserve matching references.
- Align filters, timing and units.
- Investigate unexplained differences.
- Sign off and stop temporary entry.
Common questions
Should every transaction be entered twice?+
Not necessarily. Controlled exports, replay or a selected transaction sample may answer the relevant question with less burden. If duplicate entry is required, define authority, references and side-effect controls. The comparison should produce interpretable evidence without creating competing operational records or unnecessary user fatigue.
How long should a parallel run last?+
Use a period long enough to cover relevant transaction types and timing boundaries, then apply the agreed end gate. A fixed calendar duration alone is weak evidence. Extend for a specific unresolved issue, and avoid continuing dual processes indefinitely because nobody owns the decision to stop.
Can report differences be acceptable?+
Yes, if they arise from understood filters, timing or definitions and the new result meets the agreed requirement. Document the explanation and owner approval. Unexplained differences in essential quantities, statuses or relationships should remain unresolved rather than being dismissed because most other totals happen to match.
Sources and further reading
These primary references explain relevant concepts. Our scenarios and working checklists are original, illustrative guidance.
- ERPNext documentation: Stock Reconciliation
Physical counts, opening balances and reconciliation workflows. This is further reading, not a claim about EasyManageX products.
- IBM: What is enterprise resource planning?
ERP integration and shared operational data; vendor-neutral original guidance in our articles.
Published by EasyManageX as practical, AI-assisted guidance. Examples are illustrative. Confirm software capabilities, licence terms and project-specific requirements before committing. Read our editorial policy.
