Credit analysis relies on precision. When a credit manager assesses a customer's risk profile, they need the complete picture: payment history, dispute status, financial statements, and ongoing correspondence. Ideally, this data resides in a single view. Many credit teams work between a decision engine (or a simplified front-end interface) and a system of record (often the ERP or a legacy credit system). The result is a workflow defined by constant switching, verifying, and cross-referencing.

‍

This "swivel chair" effect slows down the workday and creates data blind spots. When the primary interface lacks sufficient detail, credit managers are forced to abandon their workflow to hunt for information in a different platform. This disconnect introduces friction, erodes trust in the data, and increases the risk of making decisions based on partial information.

‍

The Reality of Data Fragmentation

The core issue is about the depth and definition of the data presented in the primary workspace. Modern credit platforms are designed to aggregate data, but if the integration doesn't pull the granular details required for a complex decision, the platform becomes a signpost rather than a destination. Credit managers describe this operational gap constantly: the actual information there is sometimes not as defined as what they're looking for, so they have to go to the actual credit system and look it up.
‍

This highlights a critical flaw in many digital transformation efforts. The goal of a new platform is to centralize work. Yet if the information isn't defined enough for the team's needs, the centralization fails. The team reverts to the old method (logging into the core system to check the raw data) because they can't trust the summary they're looking at. When a credit manager has to "go to the actual credit system and look it up," the new tool has effectively become an extra step rather than a shortcut. The user dances between screens to piece together a narrative that should be immediately visible.

‍

Why the Split View Persists

The need to switch systems usually stems from deeper structural issues regarding how data is mapped, defined, and prioritized between the ERP and the credit management layer.

‍

Shallow Data Mapping

Integrations often focus on high-level fields: Total AR Balance, Credit Limit, and Aging Buckets. These are quantitative and easy to map. However, credit decisions often rely on qualitative data: specific notes on a past due invoice, the context of a dispute, or the exact terms of a promise to pay. If the integration only pulls the header data and leaves the line-item details or text notes behind, the data is technically there but practically useless for decision-making.

‍

Definition Mismatch

Information is "not as defined" as needed often refers to data truncation or aggregation. For example, the ERP might have a detailed text field explaining that a customer is withholding payment due to a shipping error on PO #12345. The credit platform, however, might only display a status code like "Dispute." "Dispute" is a fact, but it's not a definition. Without the context, the manager can't decide if the customer is high-risk or simply operationally blocked. They must switch systems to find the story behind the status.

‍

Trust and Verification Habits

Once a team encounters a data discrepancy or a lack of detail, trust in the primary view evaporates. If a credit manager suspects that the summary screen is missing a critical note, they will establish a habit of double-checking the source system for every account, not just the complex ones. This defensive behavior ensures accuracy but destroys efficiency. The manual lookup becomes the standard operating procedure because the integrated view is perceived as a "preview" rather than the record of truth.

‍

Static vs. Live Data

In some environments, the secondary system (the credit platform) relies on batch updates that occur overnight or every few hours. The credit system or ERP is live. If a manager is releasing an order based on a payment that just arrived, they can't wait for the batch update. They go to the source. This temporal gap forces users to work outside the intended tool whenever time sensitivity is a factor.

‍

The Hidden Costs of the Two-System Workflow

Operating across two systems appears manageable on the surface. It only takes a few seconds to switch tabs or open a new window. However, when multiplied across a credit team's daily volume, the costs accumulate rapidly in terms of time, focus, and decision quality.

‍

The Cognitive Tax

Every time a user switches context, there is a cognitive cost. Moving from a modern, visual dashboard to a text-heavy ERP screen requires the brain to adjust. The user has to locate the customer again, navigate the menu structure, and find the specific field. This breaks the flow of analysis. Instead of focusing on risk assessment, the brain is focusing on navigation.

‍

The "Good Enough" Decision Risk

When retrieving data is difficult, there is a natural human tendency to make do with available information, especially when volume is high. If looking up the detailed notes takes three minutes of navigation, a busy credit manager might skip that step for a smaller account, assuming the risk is low. This creates inconsistent decision-making criteria: large accounts get the full two-system review, while smaller accounts get a cursory glance, potentially hiding aggregate risk.

‍

Erosion of ROI

Companies invest in credit management platforms to reduce manual work. If the team spends 30% of their time cross-referencing data in the old system because the new one is "undefined," the return on investment for the new platform is directly diluted. The tool is being used as a directory rather than a workbench.

‍

Unifying the Credit View

Solving the two-system problem requires more than "better integration." The goal is to ensure that the primary workspace is complete, not just a summary.

‍

The "Three-Second" Rule for Data Visibility

Can a credit manager find the specific reason for a past-due balance within three seconds of opening the account view?

If the answer is no (if they have to hover, click three times, or copy an ID into another system), the data is not properly defined. The layout must prioritize the "why" behind the numbers, bringing text notes, dispute codes, and granular payment history to the surface layer.

‍

The Field-Level Gap Analysis

Conduct a direct comparison between the source system (ERP) and the decision platform. Create a simple matrix:

• Source Field: (e.g., Customer Internal Notes)
• Target Field: (e.g., Comments)
• Status: (Truncated? Missing? Read-only?)

‍

Often, teams find that while the financials map 1:1, the narrative data does not. Identifying these specific gaps allows IT or the vendor to adjust the mapping logic to pull full text strings rather than summaries.

‍

Deep-Linking vs. Data Replication

Sometimes, replicating every single field from a complex ERP into a credit tool is technically impractical. In these cases, a "Deep Link" strategy is a viable alternative. Instead of forcing the user to open the ERP, log in, and search for the customer, the credit platform should provide a direct link that opens the specific customer record in the ERP web view. While this still involves two screens, it removes the navigation time and search friction, tightening the loop between the two views.

‍

Defining "Defined" Data

To fix the issue of information being "not as defined," the credit team must standardize input data. If "undefined" means "vague notes entered by sales," the solution is process training. If "undefined" means "the system cuts off the note after 50 characters," the solution is technical.

‍

Establish a standard for what constitutes a "complete" credit record. For example:

• Every dispute must have a reason code AND a text explanation.
• Every payment plan must have a documented approval date.
• These fields must be visible without scrolling in the main view.

‍

Why a Single View Matters

Eliminating the need to switch systems is a risk management strategy. When a credit manager has a complete, high-definition view of the customer in one place, several strategic shifts occur.

‍

Enhanced Risk Detection

When notes and financials sit side-by-side, patterns emerge. A manager might see a slight dip in payment speed (financial data) and immediately correlate it with a sales note about a change in the customer's CFO (narrative data). In a two-system world, these two facts remain separate. In a unified view, they form a risk signal.

‍

Audit Readiness

Decisions made in the "swivel chair" workflow are hard to audit. If the manager saw a critical piece of info in the ERP but hit "Approve" in the credit platform, that context is lost to the audit trail. By forcing all data into the decision platform, the "Why" behind the approval is preserved alongside the action.

‍

Speed and Scalability

Removing the manual lookup step can shave minutes off every credit review. Across a team of five managers reviewing 20 accounts a day, this recovers hours of productivity every week. This capacity can then be redirected toward analyzing complex, high-value accounts rather than navigating menus.

‍

Conclusion: Closing the Gap

Having to go to the "actual credit system" is a clear indicator that current tools are not fulfilling their promise. A tool that requires constant verification is not a tool. It's a task.

‍

To move away from the two-system workflow, credit leaders must demand higher fidelity in their data integrations and refuse to accept "summary views" as sufficient for detailed risk work. The goal is trust. When the team trusts that the screen in front of them holds the whole truth, they stop searching and start deciding.

‍

Actionable Steps

Review Your Data Definition

• Identify the top 3 specific data points your team routinely checks in the ERP.
• Determine why these are not trusted or visible in the main platform.
• Ask: Is the data missing, truncated, or just hard to find?

‍

Questions for Your Team

• How often do you log into the ERP to verify what you see in our credit software?
• What specific field or note is usually missing from the summary view?
• If you could pull one additional text field into your main dashboard, what would it be?

‍

Immediate Steps

• Audit the Switch: Sit with a credit manager for one hour. Count how many times they switch screens. Each switch represents a data gap.
• Map the Notes: Ensure that internal comments and credit notes are syncing in full, not just as headers.
• Test the Workflow: Pick a complex account. Try to make a credit decision using only the credit platform. If you feel unsafe doing so, the system needs better data definition.

‍

Tired of switching to the ERP to verify customer data? Bectran's live ERP integration pulls complete customer records —including full-text notes, dispute details, and payment history —into a single view, eliminating the need to cross-reference systems for every credit decision. See how unified data works.