Migration analysis: legacy help vs. new documentation

Cross-check of the legacy BE-Automotive help against the new Automotive documentation, including information gaps, priorities, and a remediation backlog.

Purpose

This page documents the cross-check between the legacy help portal (automotive.help.be-terna.com) and the new Automotive documentation. The goal is to make information gaps transparent and keep them actionable as a remediation backlog.

Data basis

  • Crawl of German-language legacy help pages.
  • Structure and content comparison against the current Automotive tree in this Hugo documentation.
  • Focus on process completeness, special scenarios, mobile execution, and screenshot evidence.

Cross-check result

Area Legacy pages Legacy scope (words) New pages New scope (words) Initial assessment
Setup 8 9915 6 4551 Needs deeper coverage
Sales 7 9967 5 3731 Needs deeper coverage
Purchasing 5 3255 3 2044 Partial deepening needed
Workflow 3 771 2 771 Largely stable, review structure
Loading units 6 1470 4 2205 Stable to improved
LSC 24 39092 7 7007 Largest depth gap
EDI 3 3779 4 2961 Moderate depth gap
Glossary 1 633 1 647 Stable

Note: Word count is a depth indicator, not a quality verdict. The key criterion is whether process variants, exception paths, and control steps are fully documented.

Identified gaps outside LSC

Setup

Missing or shortened depth mainly in:

  • Register-level setup logic and field impact on downstream processes.
  • Subcontracting setup, including location separation and transfer routes.
  • Detailed label and print control setup.

Sales

Notable gaps:

  • Call-off variants in edge scenarios (partial release, correction, follow-up documents).
  • Shipping preparation depth, control chains, and common deviations.
  • Operational special cases with clear if-then guidance.

Purchasing

Notable gaps:

  • Differentiated complaint and return paths by process status.
  • History/report usage with concrete control steps.
  • Variants for archived or already progressed documents.

EDI

Notable gaps:

  • Error handling depth and message flow restart procedures.
  • Partner/message-type combinations and typical cause-effect patterns.
  • Operational monitoring with clear escalation points.

Workflow and events

Mostly complete in overall scope, with potential improvements in:

  • More concrete real-world examples per event type.
  • Clearer decision paths for business users.

Main LSC gaps

LSC remains the largest difference. Priority topics to deepen:

  • Setup (register depth, special process setup, field behavior).
  • Goods receipt/warehouse variants and restrictions.
  • Mobile processes (BE-Mobile Fusion and Phone Client) with complete functional paths.
  • Special shipping processes (VDA label check, RFLT/RFID), including fallback procedures.
  • Reversal and rollback with exact document prerequisites.

Screenshot backlog by priority

Priority A (process-critical)

  • LSC setup per register with highlighted mandatory fields.
  • Picking with FEFO/FIFO selection and tolerance deviation case.
  • QA activity including blocked/released path.
  • VDA label check and RFLT/RFID scan flow.

Priority B (stability-relevant)

  • Package management: refill, reassignment, quantity correction.
  • Reversal scenarios in purchasing, production, and sales.
  • Mobile core pages for receipt/issue/production/inventory.

Priority C (training and evidence)

  • History and reporting pages in sales, purchasing, and EDI.
  • Exception examples for complaints and special processes.
  1. Bring LSC chapters to legacy depth first (highest risk reduction).
  2. Then deepen setup, sales, and EDI.
  3. In parallel, process the screenshot backlog by priority and link images to pages.
  4. Run build and link validation after each section update.

Result

  • The cross-check was performed not only for LSC but for all major areas.
  • Outside LSC, depth gaps are also visible, especially in setup, sales, and EDI.
  • This page provides a concrete, prioritized remediation backlog for the migration.