The facts and numbers are invented to teach a repeatable investigation method. Adapt the sequence to your operation and obtain competent legal, safety or engineering advice where required.
Why two reports disagreed
Sales reported 91% OTIF while operations reported 97%. Neither calculation was arithmetically wrong. Sales used the original customer request date; operations used the latest changed promise date. Operations also excluded cancelled lines after allocation. The case data are invented.
Metric contract
The team wrote one definition covering reporting grain, date field, tolerance, quantity rule, cancellations, substitutions, partial deliveries, customer-caused delay and source systems. Original request date remained visible, while approved promise changes were separately measured rather than overwriting history.
Reconciliation
A fifty-order sample was calculated both ways and every difference received a reason code. Most of the six-point gap came from promise-date changes and partial shipments. The test exposed a data issue: proof-of-delivery timestamps used upload time for some carriers rather than delivery time.
Operating response
The dashboard now shows customer-request OTIF, confirmed-promise OTIF and promise changes. The review focuses on failure causes and recoverable orders. A single headline remains, but its definition and data lineage are accessible from the report.
Governance
Finance, sales and operations signed the definition. Any later change requires an effective date and a restated comparison period. This protects management decisions from silent formula changes.
Reusable review questions
- What primary record proves the starting condition?
- Can another reviewer reproduce the calculation or event timeline?
- What control changed, who owns it and where is it documented?
- What evidence will demonstrate effectiveness after implementation?
- Which condition would require escalation or reopening?
Prepared and reviewed by Amit Mehta · Published 2026-10-16 · Editorial and corrections policy