Customized Code Retrofitting for ERP Upgrade Compatibility

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Upgrading Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems with customized code objects is time-consuming and expensive due to compatibility issues between old and new versions, necessitating manual intervention to ensure compatibility of customized functions, objects, and databases.

Innovation Solution

Automated systems and methods for retrofitting customized code objects during system upgrades from a source to a target installation, utilizing analysis agents and transformers to identify, categorize, and modify code objects for compatibility with the new version, allowing for semi-automatic or manual user intervention where necessary.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If manual rewriting of customized code objects is performed to ensure compatibility with new ERP version, then compatibility and reliability are improved, but time consumption and cost increase significantly

Engineering Contradiction:

ImprovecompatibilityVSAvoidupgrade time

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary analysis of customized code objects before the upgrade process, identifying compatibility issues in advance. The transformation rules are pre-defined and stored, allowing the system to automatically apply appropriate transformations during the upgrade without manual intervention, thus reducing upgrade time while maintaining compatibility.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system enables self-service transformation by automatically analyzing customized code objects, determining their compatibility status, and applying appropriate transformation rules without requiring manual rewriting. The system serves itself by autonomously handling the compatibility transformation process, significantly reducing the time and cost associated with manual code rewriting.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

2Reliability

If manual rewriting of customized code objects is performed to ensure compatibility with new ERP version, then compatibility and reliability are improved, but cost increases significantly

Engineering Contradiction:

ImprovecompatibilityVSAvoidupgrade cost

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSEase of manufacture

Solution Approach 1:

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system creates transformation rules based on analysis of compatibility requirements and applies these rules to transform customized code objects. Instead of manual rewriting, the system uses automated copying and adaptation of transformation patterns, reducing the need for expensive manual intervention while ensuring compatibility.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #26Copying

3Productivity

If automated transformation system is implemented to reduce upgrade time and cost, then productivity is improved, but device complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveupgrade efficiencyVSAvoidsystem complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system segments the upgrade process into distinct phases: analysis phase (identifying customized code objects and their compatibility status), transformation phase (applying transformation rules), and validation phase (verifying compatibility). This segmentation allows the complex automation task to be broken down into manageable components, reducing perceived system complexity while maintaining high productivity.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system introduces transformation rules as an intermediary layer between the old and new ERP versions. These rules act as mediators that automatically translate customized code objects from the old version to be compatible with the new version, simplifying the overall system architecture by providing a clear intermediate transformation mechanism rather than direct complex mapping.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

4Reliability

If comprehensive analysis of all customized code objects is performed, then compatibility is ensured, but time consumption increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvecompatibility assuranceVSAvoidanalysis time

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system performs analysis and transformation on customized code objects that are identified as requiring changes, rather than unnecessarily processing all code objects. By focusing only on the relevant subset of customized objects that need transformation, the system ensures compatibility assurance while minimizing analysis time through selective processing.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Data Source

PatentUS12524217B2Systems and methods for automated retrofitting of customized code objects

Publication Date: 2026.01.13 SMARTSHIFT TECHNOLOGIES INC

AI summary

The present application is directed towards systems and methods for automatic retrofitting of customized code objects during transformation of a system from a source installation to a target installation. In many instances, new objects may be created or objects modified on an online or production system while a development system is being upgraded. Simply copying the upgraded development system to the production system when complete would delete these new objects or modifications. Accordingly, the modifications or new objects may need to be retrofitted, or propagated to the development system and upgraded or transformed for compatibility with the new software, prior to placing the system online.