# QAD Adaptive ERP Migration Readiness Assessment > Source: https://netray.co/tools/qad-adaptive-erp-migration-assessment > Publisher: Netray (netray.co), AI and integration engineering for ERP and manufacturing systems. > Section: Free Tools ## Short answer Ten scored questions on customizations, integrations, data, reports and people to show how ready a QAD EE site is for Adaptive ERP. ## Category erp-migration ## Erp QAD Adaptive ERP ## Audience - QAD administrator - IT manager - ERP project manager - CIO ## Tool **Kind:** assessment **Questions:** #### How many custom programs (.p, .w, .i) are in production use beyond the standard QAD code? **Help:** Count only what users actually run, not dead code left from past projects. **Options:** ##### None or fewer than 10 **Score:** 10 ##### 10 to 50 **Score:** 7 ##### 51 to 200 **Score:** 4 ##### More than 200 or unknown **Score:** 1 #### Are your customizations documented with purpose, owner and the standard program they touch? **Options:** ##### Fully documented and current **Score:** 10 ##### Documented for the main ones **Score:** 6 ##### Mostly in people's heads **Score:** 2 ##### No documentation **Score:** 0 #### How are your external systems connected to QAD today? **Help:** Examples: EDI, WMS, MES, CRM, banks, shipping, tax engines. **Options:** ##### Documented APIs or a middleware layer **Score:** 10 ##### A mix of APIs and file drops **Score:** 6 ##### Mostly direct database reads or flat files **Score:** 3 ##### Unknown or undocumented **Score:** 0 #### How current is the version you run today relative to the version your target Adaptive ERP release expects? **Options:** ##### Recent release, upgrade path is short **Score:** 10 ##### One or two releases behind **Score:** 7 ##### Several releases behind **Score:** 3 ##### Legacy character-era version or heavily forked **Score:** 1 #### What is the state of your master data (items, BOMs, routings, customers, suppliers)? **Options:** ##### Clean, owned, with regular reviews **Score:** 10 ##### Mostly clean, known pockets of duplicates **Score:** 6 ##### Many inactive and duplicate records **Score:** 3 ##### Never cleansed **Score:** 0 #### How many reports, browses and dashboards do users depend on that are custom or built outside QAD? **Options:** ##### Fewer than 20, all inventoried **Score:** 10 ##### 20 to 100, mostly inventoried **Score:** 6 ##### More than 100, partly inventoried **Score:** 3 ##### Unknown **Score:** 0 #### Do you have a test environment that mirrors production data and integrations? **Options:** ##### Yes, refreshed on a schedule **Score:** 10 ##### Yes, but stale or partial **Score:** 6 ##### Only a small dev environment **Score:** 3 ##### No **Score:** 0 #### How well do you understand which standard processes you would change versus keep as-is? **Options:** ##### Process owners signed off a fit-gap list **Score:** 10 ##### Fit-gap started for key areas **Score:** 6 ##### Only informal opinions **Score:** 2 ##### No fit-gap done **Score:** 0 #### Do you have named business owners and key-user time committed for testing? **Options:** ##### Named owners with protected time **Score:** 10 ##### Named owners, time not protected **Score:** 6 ##### Only IT is engaged **Score:** 2 ##### No owners yet **Score:** 0 #### How do you handle compliance and audit evidence (traceability, e-signatures, tax, export controls)? **Options:** ##### Mapped to specific QAD functions and reports **Score:** 10 ##### Mapped for the main regulations **Score:** 6 ##### Relies on manual evidence **Score:** 3 ##### Not mapped **Score:** 0 **Bands:** #### Not ready: assess before you plan **Min:** 0 **Max:** 34 **Verdict:** Too much is unknown about custom code, integrations or data to commit a date. Starting the project now risks scope surprises. **Recommendations:** - Inventory every custom program, report and interface actually used in the last 12 months. - Document integrations with owner, direction, volume and protocol. - Run a master data review before any migration design starts. - Hold the business case until the inventory is complete. #### Partly ready: close the gaps first **Min:** 35 **Max:** 64 **Verdict:** You know the shape of the problem but have gaps in customization, testing or ownership that would cost time later. **Recommendations:** - Classify each customization as retire, replace with standard, or rebuild. - Stand up a test environment with realistic data and the main interfaces. - Name business owners and block their time for fit-gap and testing. - Pick one process area as a pilot to calibrate effort. #### Largely ready: plan and pilot **Min:** 65 **Max:** 84 **Verdict:** Your inputs are in decent shape. The remaining risk is mostly in scheduling, cutover and change management. **Recommendations:** - Agree cutover rules, freeze windows and rollback criteria. - Plan at least two full data migration rehearsals. - Build a regression test pack from your top 30 transactions. #### Ready: execute with discipline **Min:** 85 **Max:** 100 **Verdict:** You are better prepared than most sites. Protect the plan from scope creep and keep owners engaged through go-live. **Recommendations:** - Lock scope with a change control board. - Rehearse cutover end to end including interfaces and reports. - Plan hypercare staffing for the first two closes. ## Content **Intro:** Moving from QAD Enterprise Edition to QAD Adaptive ERP is rarely blocked by the standard product. It is slowed by custom code, undocumented interfaces and unowned data. This ten question assessment shows where your site stands and what to fix before you commit a timeline. **Sections:** #### How to use this assessment **Body:** Answer for your production environment as it runs today, not as you wish it did. Involve at least one person from IT, one from finance and one from operations, because each sees different gaps. The score is a percentage of the maximum, and the band tells you whether to assess further, close gaps, plan, or execute. Export the result to PDF to share with a steering group. **Bullets:** - Answer from evidence, not memory - Let different roles answer different questions - Re-run the assessment after each gap-closing step - Treat unknown as the lowest answer #### What the questions measure **Body:** The questions cover five areas that decide migration effort: customization volume and documentation, integration approach, data quality, reporting dependence and organisational readiness. Customizations carry the most weight because each one needs a decision: retire, replace with standard behavior, or rebuild on the newer architecture. Integrations come next because they connect your plant, suppliers and banks and are often discovered late. #### Reading your band **Body:** A low band does not mean you should not migrate. It means the cost of discovery is still ahead of you and will land in the project if you do not do it first. A high band means the remaining risk is execution: cutover, testing time and user adoption. In either case, write down what you will do for each recommendation and assign an owner. #### Common mistakes **Body:** Teams often count customizations by file rather than by business function, which hides how many processes depend on them. Another mistake is treating reports as an afterthought; users judge a new system by whether their daily reports still exist. Finally, many sites plan data migration once. Plan at least two rehearsals, and compare balances, open orders and inventory by location between source and target. **Bullets:** - Counting files instead of business functions - Ignoring custom reports and browses - One data migration attempt instead of rehearsals - No protected time for key users **Cta:** If you want a second pair of eyes on your customization and interface inventory, Netray can review it and show where AI-assisted analysis speeds up the work. **Faq:** #### Is this the same as a QAD fit-gap? **Answer:** No. This is a readiness screen. It tells you whether you have the inputs to run a fit-gap and plan a migration. A fit-gap goes process by process and decides what to change. Use this first, then run the fit-gap with process owners. #### Does a low score mean we should stay on QAD EE? **Answer:** Not necessarily. It means you do not yet know the cost of moving. Many low scores come from missing documentation, which can be fixed in weeks. Staying put has its own risks around support, security patching and talent, so decide with data from the inventory. #### Who should fill this in? **Answer:** Ideally the QAD administrator, a finance lead, an operations lead and whoever owns integrations. If one person answers alone, you will usually score yourself too high on areas outside their daily work. #### Is my data sent anywhere? **Answer:** The assessment runs in your browser. Your answers stay on your device unless you choose to request a review. Exporting to PDF is generated locally. ## Search terms QAD Adaptive ERP migration, QAD EE to Adaptive ERP assessment, QAD cloud migration readiness, QAD Enterprise Edition upgrade, QAD migration checklist, QAD customization assessment, move from QAD EE to cloud, QAD Adaptive ERP readiness --- Talk to an engineer: https://netray.co/contact?intent=erp_ai | Machine catalog: https://netray.co/agent/catalog.json