ERP Specialist Consulting

ERP Specialist Consulting is deliberately narrower in scope. Rather than owning platform selection and the full end-to-end rollout, PNPC provides deep expertise into a specific functional domain — most commonly finance and tax configuration, costing and inventory valuation, reporting design, or controls — working alongside a systems integrator, vendor implementation team, or your internal IT team who own the rest of the project. It is the right fit when the gap is specifically in finance/tax technical depth, not in overall project delivery capability.

No. PNPC's ERP Specialist Consulting is designed to work alongside your chosen systems integrator or vendor implementation team, not replace them. We define our scope clearly upfront — typically finance, tax, costing, and reporting configuration — and coordinate directly with your existing team so our input is implemented within the broader project rather than sitting as a separate, unactioned report.

Our specialist input is platform-agnostic in the sense that the underlying finance, VAT, and Corporate Tax logic applies regardless of platform — we have supported specialist engagements across SAP, Oracle NetSuite, Microsoft Dynamics 365, Odoo, and other mid-market and enterprise platforms. What matters is whether the platform's finance module configuration has been reviewed by someone with UAE tax technical depth, not which specific platform is in use.

ERP Software Advisory & Implementation is a full end-to-end engagement covering platform selection, business case, complete implementation, data migration, and training, with PNPC owning the overall project. ERP Specialist Consulting is narrower — it assumes a platform has already been chosen and an implementation is already underway or planned with another team, and PNPC provides deep expertise into a specific functional domain within that existing project rather than owning it end to end.

Yes. Post-go-live remediation is a common entry point for this engagement. We run a current-state review of the existing chart of accounts, tax-code mapping, costing configuration, and reporting outputs, identify specifically where the configuration is not reconciling to what is filed with the FTA or used in management reporting, and provide a documented remediation plan — which is often a series of targeted corrections rather than a full re-implementation.

The most common failure is tax-code mapping that does not correctly distinguish standard-rated, zero-rated, exempt, and out-of-scope supplies at the transaction level, or that fails to handle Designated Zone movements correctly. A technical implementer following a generic template can configure tax codes that appear to work — invoices generate, VAT calculates — while still producing a VAT return that does not reconcile cleanly to the general ledger or that misclassifies specific transaction types, a gap that typically surfaces only when the FTA queries a return.

The chart of accounts, cost-centre structure, and costing method configured in the ERP feed directly into the Corporate Tax computation — taxable income calculated after the 0% threshold on income up to AED 375,000 and 9% above it, or the qualifying-income treatment for a Qualifying Free Zone Person. A chart of accounts that does not cleanly segregate qualifying and non-qualifying activities, or an inconsistently applied costing method, makes the annual computation slower, more manual, and harder to defend on an FTA query.

Both, depending on the engagement scope. Where costing configuration does not yet exist or needs to be built as part of a broader implementation, we design it directly — FIFO, weighted average, or standard cost, applied consistently — with explicit attention to how it flows through to cost of goods sold and taxable income. Where a costing configuration already exists, we review it for consistency and correctness and recommend specific corrections rather than a wholesale rebuild unless one is genuinely warranted.

Multi-entity structures raise specific ERP configuration questions: whether entities share a single instance with segregated reporting or run separate instances, how intercompany transactions are recorded and eliminated in consolidation, and how each entity's VAT and Corporate Tax position (including Qualifying Free Zone Person status, where relevant) is reflected distinctly rather than blended. We assess this specifically as part of the chart of accounts and cost-centre design work.

For a defined engagement such as tax configuration review and correction alongside an in-progress implementation, a realistic timeline is roughly 3–8 weeks, depending on the complexity of the chart of accounts, number of entities involved, and depth of costing configuration required. A narrower pre-implementation requirements definition engagement can be shorter; a post-go-live remediation of a materially misconfigured finance module can run longer. PNPC provides a specific written timeline after the current-state review, not before it.

Cost depends on the scope of the specialist domain involved, the number of entities and currencies, the complexity of the existing or proposed configuration, and whether the engagement is a pre-implementation review, active configuration work, or post-go-live remediation. PNPC provides a written scope and fee proposal after the current-state review and scoping call — we do not quote a fixed figure before understanding what the specific gap actually requires.

Yes. An independent validation of already-completed configuration is a common form of this engagement — we test sample transactions against the configured tax codes, costing logic, and reporting outputs to confirm they behave as designed, and provide a written finding on whether the configuration is sound or needs correction before you sign off on an implementation milestone or go-live.

Common outputs include management dashboards for operational KPIs, statutory reporting extracts that support VAT and Corporate Tax filings, and audit-ready trial balance and reconciliation reports that an external auditor or the FTA can rely on without requiring manual reconstruction. We test that the underlying chart of accounts and transaction configuration actually support these outputs cleanly, rather than requiring a manual workaround each reporting period.

Yes, where relevant to the engagement scope. We review or help design approval workflows and user-role permissioning specifically for finance and tax-relevant transactions — who can post journal entries, approve payments, or adjust tax codes — so the resulting audit trail is one a controller or external auditor can actually test, rather than a default configuration where most users have broad, unreviewed access.

No. PNPC's ERP Specialist Consulting is independent — we do not resell ERP licences and we do not receive referral commissions from any platform vendor or systems integrator. Our recommendations are based on what your finance, tax, costing, and reporting configuration genuinely need, regardless of which platform or integrator you have already chosen. We confirm this independence in writing at the start of every engagement.