[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":71},["ShallowReactive",2],{"legacy:insights\u002Fsrm-vmi-consignment-inventory:en":3},{"id":4,"title":5,"description":6,"keywords":7,"author":8,"robots":9,"bodyClass":10,"image":11,"jsonld":12,"html":70},"insights\u002Fsrm-vmi-consignment-inventory","Consignment shows stock on both sides but never ties? Unify ownership and the consumption booking point first - JEDP Digital Platform","Consignment mess is rarely “too few counts”—ownership, consumable point, and invoice trigger were never written. Consumption, ownership transfer, and AP must share one event; both portals see the same available qty.","VMI consignment, consignment inventory reconcile, vendor-managed inventory, SRM consignment","Shenzhen Langbowan Information Technology Co., Ltd.","index, follow","page-insights","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Fres\u002Fimages\u002Fproduct\u002Fsrm-slide6.webp",[13,30,44],{"@context":14,"@type":15,"@id":16,"headline":17,"description":6,"inLanguage":18,"datePublished":19,"dateModified":20,"articleSection":21,"keywords":7,"image":11,"author":22,"publisher":24,"isPartOf":25,"mainEntityOfPage":27},"https:\u002F\u002Fschema.org","Article","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Finsights\u002Fsrm-vmi-consignment-inventory#article","Consignment shows stock on both sides but never ties? Unify ownership and the consumption booking point first","zh-CN","2026-08-13","2026-10-17","SRM · Supplier",{"@id":23},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002F#organization",{"@id":23},{"@id":26},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Finsights#collection",{"@type":28,"@id":29},"WebPage","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Finsights\u002Fsrm-vmi-consignment-inventory",{"@context":14,"@type":31,"itemListElement":32},"BreadcrumbList",[33,38,42],{"@type":34,"position":35,"name":36,"item":37},"ListItem",1,"Home","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002F",{"@type":34,"position":39,"name":40,"item":41},2,"Insights","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Finsights",{"@type":34,"position":43,"name":17,"item":29},3,{"@context":14,"@type":45,"@id":46,"mainEntity":47},"FAQPage","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Finsights\u002Fsrm-vmi-consignment-inventory#faq",[48,54,58,62,66],{"@type":49,"name":50,"acceptedAnswer":51},"Question","What is the difference between VMI and consignment?",{"@type":52,"text":53},"Answer","Names are often used interchangeably. What really needs to be clarified is whether the responsibility for restocking, ownership of goods, and invoicing triggers are included in the contract and recorded in the system. If these three points are unclear, any terminology will lead to confusion in the accounts.",{"@type":49,"name":55,"acceptedAnswer":56},"Whose scan counts as consumption?",{"@type":52,"text":57},"It should be based on the main factory business events (material issuance\u002Fonline deduction), and the supplier can see the feedback. Supplier's estimated consumption being invoiced again is the biggest pitfall in consignment reconciliation.",{"@type":49,"name":59,"acceptedAnswer":60},"Can a consignment warehouse run FIFO?",{"@type":52,"text":61},"Yes, but the consignor must be quarantined first: we need to clarify whose goods are correct before discussing the batch sequence.",{"@type":49,"name":63,"acceptedAnswer":64},"Who bears inventory shortage?",{"@type":52,"text":65},"The contract writes default rules; the system issues discrepancy reports to handle claims or losses. An oral 'split fifty-fifty' will inevitably lead to disputes after three months.",{"@type":49,"name":67,"acceptedAnswer":68},"How to pick a small pilot batch?",{"@type":52,"text":69},"High consumption frequency, single measurement unit, fixed line-side position. Materials with frequent unit conversions and frequent changeovers are not suitable for the first batch.","\u003Carticle class=\"insight-article\">\n    \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-container\">\n      \u003Cnav class=\"breadcrumb\" aria-label=\"Breadcrumb\">\n        \u003Ca href=\"\u002F\">Home\u003C\u002Fa>\n        \u003Cspan class=\"breadcrumb-sep\">\u002F\u003C\u002Fspan>\n        \u003Ca href=\"\u002Finsights\">Insights\u003C\u002Fa>\n        \u003Cspan class=\"breadcrumb-sep\">\u002F\u003C\u002Fspan>\n        \u003Cspan>SRM · Supplier\u003C\u002Fspan>\n      \u003C\u002Fnav>\n\n      \u003Cheader class=\"insight-hero\">\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-tags\">\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">VMI\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">Consignment\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">Inventory Reconciliation\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n        \u003Ch1>Consignment shows stock on both sides but never ties? Unify ownership and the consumption booking point first\u003C\u002Fh1>\n        \u003Cp class=\"insight-lede\">The supplier said there are still two hundred units in the consignment warehouse, the workshop said they used them up in the morning; the finance department said this batch hasn't been recorded as accounts payable, the warehouse manager said the goods were shelved a long time ago. Consignment was originally meant to reduce inventory pressure, but it ended up becoming three sets of parallel accounts.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-meta\">\n          \u003Cspan>Updated 2026-08-13\u003C\u002Fspan>\n          \u003Cspan class=\"dot\" aria-hidden=\"true\">\u003C\u002Fspan>\n          \u003Cspan>~8 min read\u003C\u002Fspan>\n          \u003Cspan class=\"dot\" aria-hidden=\"true\">\u003C\u002Fspan>\n          \u003Cspan>Manufacturing digitalization · SRM · Supplier\u003C\u002Fspan>\n        \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n      \u003C\u002Fheader>\n      \u003Csection class=\"insight-takeaways\">\n        \u003Ch2>What you'll take away\u003C\u002Fh2>\n        \u003Cul>\u003Cli>The contract and system should first clearly specify: the timing of transfer of goods ownership and title, the point when it can be consumed, the trigger for invoicing—missing any of the four points will create chaos.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Consumption only recognizes audit events (work order material issuance \u002F line-side deduction \u002F same-source reporting reversal), prohibiting end-of-month estimates and supplier self-reports\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>The invoicing trigger is hard-coded to choose one of three options, and the same supplier and the same warehouse are prohibited from running two sets in parallel.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Both parties' portals have the same available quantity and in-transit quantity; differences are visible on the same day, and closing should go through reporting loss\u002Fclaim\u002Fadjustment consumption\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Before clarifying the consignor, consignment and own-stock warehouses must not be mixed in the same picking strategy\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Ful>\n      \u003C\u002Fsection>\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-layout\">\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-body\">\n\u003Ch2 id=\"同一个货架-三套故事\">One shelf, three conflicting stories\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>The consignment warehouse is labeled with the supplier's tag. The warehouse manager issues materials according to 'usable'; the ERP still shows 'pending settlement'; the supplier portal shows 'customer has not used'. In case of material shortage, all three parties will each refresh their own screens—the argument shifts from delivery time to 'who actually has the materials'.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Consignment\u002FVMI moves the inventory location forward and the settlement point backward. When the location is moved forward but the settlement point is not clearly defined, the site will simultaneously feel that 'it looks like there is stock' and 'it can't be used on the accounts.' Each additional set of parallel accounts adds another opportunity for 'favor smoothing'; after smoothing three times, both trust and auditing are damaged.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"四点写进合同-也写进字段\">Write four points into the contract—and into fields\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cdiv class=\"table-scroll\">\u003Ctable>\u003Cthead>\u003Ctr>\u003Cth>problem\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Common options\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Consequences of not writing clearly\u003C\u002Fth>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Fthead>\u003Ctbody>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Who owns the goods?\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Supplier \u002F Main Factory \u002F Segment Transfer\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Disputes over inventory loss, insurance, and scrapping responsibilities\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>When does ownership transfer?\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Put on shelves \u002F Quality inspection release \u002F Consumption confirmation\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Mismatch between posting date and invoice date\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Where can it be used up?\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Available after release \u002F Sent to the line side\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>The available quantity for the whole warehouse does not match\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>When will the invoice be issued?\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Write-off of consumption according to consumption \u002F reconciliation confirmation \u002F inventory posting\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Excel 'translation' system for accounts payable staff\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Ftbody>\u003C\u002Ftable>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n\u003Cp>Policy appendices can be short, but system fields must be executable. With only policies and no events, warehouse management will still issue materials based on intuition. If any one of the four points is inconsistent between the contract and system fields, someone will definitely use Excel as a 'translation layer' at the end of the period.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"消耗-事件优先-估计出局\">Consumption: events first, estimates out\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>Reliable sources (by priority):\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Col>\u003Cli>Work order material issuing scan (bind work order with materials);\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Line-side quota deduction (with feedback);\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Production reporting reversal (must be originated from MES).\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Fol>\n\u003Cp>Out of stock: At the end of the month, 'approximately how much was used,' suppliers' salespeople verbally report numbers, and the received quantity is directly counted as consumption.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Random inspection: randomly select a consignment payable and see if you can click to find the consumption timestamp and business order number within one minute. If you can’t, it means invoicing by estimation. Reversals must come from the same source: if MES reporting is modified but WMS edge is not, the available quantities on both sides will grow independently; which side to take as the standard must be fixed and cannot be decided by the on-duty staff on the spot.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"开票触发-三选一-禁止混用\">Invoice trigger: pick one mode, never mix\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cdiv class=\"table-scroll\">\u003Ctable>\u003Cthead>\u003Ctr>\u003Cth>Mode\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>For\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>System Key Points\u003C\u002Fth>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Fthead>\u003Ctbody>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Invoice by consumption\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>High-frequency standard parts\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Generate settlement sheet from consumption event summary\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Issue invoice based on account reconciliation confirmation\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Amount-sensitive, highly controversial\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>The invoice can only be issued after both parties have confirmed.\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Inventory Posting   Consumption Write-off\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>A few 'nominal consignment, but actually recorded' contracts\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Reversal entries should be clear; do not mix with invoices for pure consumption in the same physical warehouse.\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Ftbody>\u003C\u002Ftable>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n\u003Cp>For the same supplier and the same warehouse, two sets of triggers run in parallel, and accounts payable should definitely return to Excel after three months. Any changes in the model must announce the effective date, and it should be clearly stated whether historical data is recalculated. Take three samples each before and after the switch: the trigger type on the settlement sheet must match the contract, and it cannot be 'the new model is active, but the old inventory is still estimated according to the old rules.'\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"单位-质检-可耗用顺序\">UoM, QC, and the consumable sequence\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>The main factory counts by pieces, suppliers by boxes; at the production line by kilograms, in the warehouse by bags — when the conversion is not frozen, discrepancies appear as 'a little difference every day.' Freeze before going online: inventory units, consumption units, conversion rates, and whether splitting is allowed. The effective date is required for conversion rate changes, and manual adjustments are prohibited on the day of inventory counting.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>If receiving still requires IQC:\u003Cstrong>The consumable points must be used after release.\u003C\u002Fstrong>Once put on the shelf, consumption occurs immediately, and quality inspection is conducted afterwards, which may result in both accounting and physical rollbacks of 'consumed but returned' items. Consignment items are categorized into 'Pending Inspection' and 'Available' statuses, and consumption events are only allowed on available items. When a quality inspection fails and the items are returned to the supplier or claimed for compensation, it is necessary to reverse the previously incorrectly triggered consumption — without a reversal path, finance can only cover it with adjustment entries.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"补货责任与安全库存谁扛\">Who owns replenishment and safety stock\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>VMI often states 'supplier responsible for replenishment,' yet there is no consumption curve or replenishment suggestion visible to the supplier in the system. The result is: the main factory blames the supplier for stockouts, and the supplier blames the main factory for not providing forecasts. The minimum agreement:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cul>\u003Cli>The main factory releases consumption and availability (daily or per shift);\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>The supplier responds according to the agreed replenishment lead time and maximum\u002Fminimum inventory;\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>If material shortage occurs because the main factory did not release consumption on time, the responsibility code belongs to the main factory; if it is because the supplier did not replenish according to the suggestion, it belongs to the supplier.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Ful>\n\u003Cp>Without 'who should replenish, according to what signal,' consignment will only turn into a free warehouse for the main factory. Replenishment suggestions can be rough—rolling three-day consumption, minimum stock only—but they must be visible to both parties, and the reason code for stockout must be recorded as 'signal not sent' or 'no response'.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"差异当日可见-关闭三选一\">Variances visible same day; close via one of three paths\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>Minimal set of rules:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cul>\u003Cli>The difference in available quantity for both sides can be viewed daily\u002Feach shift;\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Automatically generate differential to-dos above the threshold;\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Inventory discrepancy mandatory reason codes (theft\u002Floss, measurement, mixing, missed scanning);\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Closure path: Loss report \u002F Claim \u002F Adjustment of consumption — Silent data modification is prohibited.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Ful>\n\u003Cp>Consignment inventory must be counted according to the owner's instructions, and it is forbidden to roughly split it with self-owned stock. Before closing a profit and loss inventory, the supplier side should be able to see pending discrepancies (through the portal or reconciliation package). If the main factory unilaterally changes the available quantity and the supplier discovers it only in the next period, it is a trust killer.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Mixing consigned goods with owned goods is an accident-prone practice. At a minimum: isolate goods by owner, prioritize allocation for the specific owner, and conduct inventory by owner. FIFO\u002FFEFO is effective, but\u003Cstrong>Cargo owner correctness takes precedence over batch correctness\u003C\u002Fstrong>。\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"退出剧本比上线清单更重要\">An exit playbook beats a go-live checklist\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>Supplier exit or project termination: how to buy out\u002Freturn remaining consignment, how to handle goods in transit, and how to lock accounts for unsettled consumption. VMI without an exit plan usually ends up as 'the goods remain, the contract is gone, and neither side dares to move.' On the exit date, new consumption and new replenishment should be frozen, unsettled accounts and pending discrepancies should be cleared first, and then the buyout price or return shipment can be negotiated—if the order is reversed, the final discrepancy can hang for half a year.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"一个货架-一个供方-三种料\">One shelf, one supplier, three SKUs\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>Forced consumption event postings and daily differences are visible. Over a two-week period, look at: the consistency rate of available quantities on both sides, the number of payables without order numbers, and the duration for closing differences. If the consistency rate is not improving, first check whether consumable points and invoicing triggers are being mixed—expanding SKUs only multiplies confusion by the number of part numbers. If the number of payables without order numbers is not zero, it indicates that invoicing is still bypassing consumption events; if the duration for closing differences is abnormally high, it is most likely because reason codes can be left empty or closing does not require supplier visibility.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>The indicators have been poor for two consecutive weeks. First, freeze further position expansion, then go back and check the four-point fields and event sources—don’t use 'another inventory check' to cover up bookkeeping errors.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"在途-调拨与多仓寄售\">In-transit, transfer, and multi-warehouse consignment\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>Consignment doesn't just stop at one shelf. Goods that have been sent by the supplier but not yet shelved, inter-warehouse transfers, and moves between the line side and storage—all these stages must retain the owner of the goods. Whether goods in transit are counted as available to the supplier or in transit for the main factory must be consistent between both parties; if one party counts it as available and the other does not, material shortages will repeat the shelf story.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>When consigning multiple warehouses, consumption events need to carry the storage location and plant information. If the group consolidated invoicing ignores the plant dimension, reconciliation with branch plants will not match. Before the transfer is confirmed as completed, consumption in the target warehouse is prohibited—otherwise, it will result in 'the vehicle is still on the way, but the accounts have already deducted consumption'.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Pre-pilot expansion self-test: After the same material is moved from storage to line-side transfer, check whether the owner and consumable status remain continuous; if at any stage it changes to 'self-owned' or 'no owner', mixed picking and invoicing errors will occur within a week.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"开票争议怎么关-才不算-下期再说\">Close invoice disputes—do not push them to next period\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>When the consumption has been recorded and the supplier has objections to the unit price or tax rate: freeze the invoicing of the settlement sheet and leave the consumption event unchanged. After the dispute is resolved, generate an adjustment line (to make up the difference or offset), and it is forbidden to directly change the historical consumption quantity for price negotiation. If quantity and price are changed together in one line, no one can clearly tell how much was consumed after three months.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>The tax rate\u002Ftax-included basis changes must be announced with an effective date; consumption before the effective date follows the old basis, and afterwards follows the new basis. If mixed into the same settlement sheet, it is the second most common 'both sides are correct' scenario in consignment reconciliation.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cul>\u003Cli>SRM supply solution\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Arrival and In-Transit Coordination\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Reconciliation, invoicing, and payment with the same key\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Two-way confirmation for multi-warehouse transfer\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Ful>\n        \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n        \u003Caside class=\"insight-toc\" aria-label=\"On this page\">\n          \u003Ch2>Contents\u003C\u002Fh2>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#同一个货架-三套故事\">One shelf, three conflicting stories\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#四点写进合同-也写进字段\">Write four points into the contract—and into fields\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#消耗-事件优先-估计出局\">Consumption: events first, estimates out\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#开票触发-三选一-禁止混用\">Invoice trigger: pick one mode, never mix\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#单位-质检-可耗用顺序\">UoM, QC, and the consumable sequence\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#补货责任与安全库存谁扛\">Who owns replenishment and safety stock\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#差异当日可见-关闭三选一\">Variances visible same day; close via one of three paths\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#退出剧本比上线清单更重要\">An exit playbook beats a go-live checklist\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#一个货架-一个供方-三种料\">One shelf, one supplier, three SKUs\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#在途-调拨与多仓寄售\">In-transit, transfer, and multi-warehouse consignment\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#开票争议怎么关-才不算-下期再说\">Close invoice disputes—do not push them to next period\u003C\u002Fa>\n        \u003C\u002Faside>\n      \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-cta\">\n        \u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Want to apply this in your plant?\u003C\u002Fstrong>Resources has matching self-assessments and templates—or book a live demo.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-cta-actions\">\n          \u003Ca href=\"\u002Fresources?from=srm#selftest\" class=\"btn btn-outline\">Self-assessment in Resources\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca href=\"\u002Fcases#case-srm\" class=\"btn btn-outline\">SRM acceptance case\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca href=\"\u002Fcontact?from=srm\" class=\"btn\">Get a demo\u003C\u002Fa>\n        \u003C!-- next-step:BEGIN -->\u003Ca class=\"btn\" href=\"\u002Fproduct\u002Fsrm\">Product solution: \u003Cspan>JEDP-SRM Supplier Relationship Management\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fa>\u003Ca class=\"btn btn-outline\" href=\"\u002Fres\u002Fresources\u002Fkits\u002F01-srm-supplier-onboarding-scorecard.html\">Matching resource kit: \u003Cspan>Supplier onboarding checklist + performance scorecard\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fa>\u003C!-- next-step:END -->\n        \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n      \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n      \u003Csection class=\"insight-faq\" id=\"faq\">\n        \u003Ch2>FAQ\u003C\u002Fh2>\n        \u003Cp class=\"insight-faq-sub\">Quick answers on this topic—still stuck?\u003Ca href=\"\u002Fcontact?from=srm\">Contact\u003C\u002Fa>\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"faq-list\">\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\" open>\n          \u003Csummary>What is the difference between VMI and consignment?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>Names are often used interchangeably. What really needs to be clarified is whether the responsibility for restocking, ownership of goods, and invoicing triggers are included in the contract and recorded in the system. If these three points are unclear, any terminology will lead to confusion in the accounts.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>Whose scan counts as consumption?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>It should be based on the main factory business events (material issuance\u002Fonline deduction), and the supplier can see the feedback. Supplier's estimated consumption being invoiced again is the biggest pitfall in consignment reconciliation.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>Can a consignment warehouse run FIFO?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>Yes, but the consignor must be quarantined first: we need to clarify whose goods are correct before discussing the batch sequence.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>Who bears inventory shortage?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>The contract writes default rules; the system issues discrepancy reports to handle claims or losses. An oral 'split fifty-fifty' will inevitably lead to disputes after three months.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>How to pick a small pilot batch?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>High consumption frequency, single measurement unit, fixed line-side position. Materials with frequent unit conversions and frequent changeovers are not suitable for the first batch.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n      \u003C\u002Fsection>\n      \u003Csection class=\"insight-related\">\n        \u003Ch2>Related reading\u003C\u002Fh2>\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-related-grid\">\n          \u003Carticle class=\"r-card\">\n            \u003Cdiv class=\"r-tags\">SRM · Supplier\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n            \u003Ch3>Purchasing as a relay: supplier says shipped, warehouse says no lines—why in-transit never ties\u003C\u002Fh3>\n            \u003Cp>The in-transit and actual receipts do not match. It is common that the shipping plan, shipping details, dock occupation, and posting back each manage a separate segment. The supplier and the warehouse need to share the same set of statuses, and purchasing will no longer rely on screenshots to communicate...\u003C\u002Fp>\n            \u003Cdiv class=\"r-meta\">2026-09-30 · ~8 min\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n          \u003C\u002Farticle>\n          \u003Carticle class=\"r-card\">\n            \u003Cdiv class=\"r-tags\">SRM · Supplier\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n            \u003Ch3>Reconcile, invoice, and pay never match—three documents must share one business key\u003C\u002Fh3>\n            \u003Cp>The purchasing department says the goods have arrived, the warehouse says they have been stocked, and the finance department says the invoice doesn't match. Reconciliation confirmation, invoice verification, and payment applications need to fall under the same business key. Any discrepancies can be traced back to receipts, returns, and price versions, rather than reconciling the three parties at the end of the period...\u003C\u002Fp>\n            \u003Cdiv class=\"r-meta\">2026-04-24 · ~8 min\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n          \u003C\u002Farticle>\n          \u003Carticle class=\"r-card\">\n            \u003Cdiv class=\"r-tags\">WMS · Warehouse\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n            \u003Ch3>Multi-warehouse transfers never sync? Two-sided confirm beats “each side books once”\u003C\u002Fh3>\n            \u003Cp>After the group warehouse, workshop warehouse, and outsourced warehouse run in parallel, inventory disputes have turned into 'which account the goods are on.' Cross-warehouse transfers require issuing locks, in-transit visibility, receipt confirmation, and discrepancies reasons. Owner isolation and ERP posting can reconcile accounts, avoiding...\u003C\u002Fp>\n            \u003Cdiv class=\"r-meta\">2026-04-28 · ~8 min\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n          \u003C\u002Farticle>\n        \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n      \u003C\u002Fsection>\n    \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n  \u003C\u002Farticle>",1793937990762]