We find why enterprise systems behave wrongly
Not only whether a field is missing. Most tools that look at ERP data can tell you a cell is empty. Very few can tell you that a lead time of 30 days has been contradicted by your own receipts for two years, that there is no safety stock behind it, and that this is why the same customer keeps getting a late delivery. That gap is the whole company.
The problem we set out to fix
ERP systems are configured once, by people who were right at the time. Then the supplier changes, the volumes move, a product is discontinued, a plant is added — and the settings stay exactly as they were. The system keeps obeying them perfectly. The results get steadily worse, and the blame lands on planners, on suppliers, on the ERP itself, on anything except the parameter that quietly stopped being true.
Meanwhile the tool that could find it arrives late, because getting it approved takes longer than running it. A security review, a procurement step, an integration project — and by then the shortage has already shipped, or not shipped, which is worse.
What we do about it
We put the cheapest, safest form of the analysis first. Rules and arithmetic, running on your own machine, over an export you already know how to produce. Nothing moves, so there is nothing to approve, so the first useful answer arrives on day one instead of in quarter three. Only when that has proved useful does anything heavier make sense.
What we hold ourselves to
Evidence, or it does not get printed
Every finding names its objects, quotes the numbers it compared, states the business impact and the likely cause, recommends a specific change, and points at an owner. No unexplained recommendations, ever. If we cannot show the working, we do not make the claim.
Your data stays yours
The free check moves nothing at all. The steps we are building are designed so that what crosses the boundary is results, never your records — and so that the heavy work eventually runs inside your own environment, on your own controls, rather than in ours.
Read first, act later
Diagnosis before automation, always. Nothing writes back to your system today, and when something eventually does, it will be after a person has read the evidence and approved the change.
We would rather be checkable than impressive
Thresholds are written in plain rule files so you can argue with them. Confidence is reported as judgement rather than dressed up as probability. Checks that could not run are listed instead of quietly skipped. This site claims no customers, no results and no certifications, because we do not have them yet.
Where we actually are
Stated plainly, because you will find out anyway and it is better if you hear it here.
- What exists: the local check for Dynamics 365 planning and master data — 26 checks, running free in your browser, over extracts you produce yourself.
- What does not exist: the cloud explanation and reporting step, the in-tenant execution step, and the Azure and Power Platform family. They are described on this site in the future tense, under visible markers, and nowhere else.
- What has not been proved: the thresholds have not been tuned against a real customer tenant, and the sample data that demonstrates the checks is synthetic. We say so on the pages where it matters.
- What we have not got: customers we can name, published results, certifications, or a price. When those exist they will appear here; until then this site will keep being conspicuously empty where competitors put logos.
[PLACEHOLDER: whether to publish the delivery sequence for the two unbuilt steps. Publishing dates creates commitments; publishing the order without dates is probably the safer version.]
[PLACEHOLDER: whether to say publicly how small the team is. The architecture is deliberately designed so a very small company can serve enterprise customers safely — that is either a credibility problem or the most interesting sentence on this page, and it is the owner's call which.]
[PLACEHOLDER: founder or team section — name, background, photo. No real person is named anywhere on this site without explicit permission.]
Getting in touch, and why you cannot yet
There is no e-mail address, telephone number, contact form or social account for Neopiq on this site, because none has been set up. Nothing has been invented to fill the gap: no button anywhere on this site opens a message window, and none pretends to. When a contact route exists it will be published here and in the imprint, and the buttons on the pricing page will point at it instead of at this section.
So the honest answer to “how do I get started?” is that you do not need us at all. The free check is the whole of what exists today, it runs in your browser, and it needs no account, no sign-up and no conversation. There is no waiting list to join, because there is nothing yet to wait for.
[PLACEHOLDER: contact e-mail address. Owner to supply; none is invented here.]
[PLACEHOLDER: LinkedIn or other channel.]
[PLACEHOLDER: decide whether to add a contact form. A form needs a backend, which this static site does not have, and a privacy notice before it could collect anything.]
Once a route does exist, these are the conversations worth having: you have run the free check and want the findings challenged or interpreted; you are heading into a go-live, a migration or an inventory programme and want the parameters reviewed first; or you want to be told when the reporting step opens.
Not worth a conversation even then, for now: buying anything. Only the free check is available, and it does not need us.
The best introduction is the one that costs you nothing
Run the check on your own export. If it finds nothing worth acting on, you owe us nothing and you have learned something reassuring about your planning setup.