Document management, e-mail, tasks, meetings, requests, and the call center — in Minerva these are not separate products bolted on next to the ERP, but components designed at the center of the system.
For this reason, each of them can be linked to every business object in the system. While you are on an order form, you see the technical drawing of that product, the past correspondence, and the open complaint record on the same screen.
The basic principle: Components designed at the center
All of the components described on this page are designed to sit at the center of the system in Minerva. This is an architectural choice, and it has a single consequence:
these components can be used in all transactions in the system and can be linked to all business objects.
A concrete example:
All objects defined in the digital asset system for a product — image, PDF, HTML document, XML document, text, drawing, icon — are linked to that product.
For this reason, they are displayed on the product record.
For the same reason, they are also displayed and can be used in every transaction in which the product is used.
While you are on the order form, all digital assets belonging to the product and every kind of product attribute are at your fingertips.
This behavior is not the result of an integration effort. Because the component is designed at the center, establishing a link is the default state; it requires no additional configuration.
Central components and business objects
Each central component can be linked to any one or more business objects
Central components
Digital Asset and Document
Personal Activity
Corporate Activity - Event
Meeting
Message
E-Mail
Work and Request
Call
Business Objects
Product / Object
Customer
Supplier
Personnel
Order
Delivery Note
Invoice
Production Work Order
Project
Asset / Equipment
Physical Location
...
Every Central Component and/or Business Object can be linked to one another
The relationship is not one-way. You can move from a document to the order it is linked to, from a call to the related production work order, from an e-mail to the related customer record.
When you set up separate systems, the question is
“How will we get these two systems to talk to each other?” When the component is designed at the center, this question is never asked — because there are no two systems to be made to talk.
Digital asset and document management
It is possible to keep every kind of digital asset in the system: image, PDF, HTML document, XML document, text, technical drawing, icon, and the like.
Capabilities
Storage, as preferred, in BLOB fields in the database or as physical files.
Detailed authorization for each file.
Directory definition and directory-based authorization.
Keeping and tracking document versions.
Linking every digital asset to the related business object.
The choice of storage method is a practical matter. For small and frequently accessed files, in-database storage provides transactional integrity and ease of backup;
for high-volume technical drawing or video archives, the file system is more suitable. The decision is made together during the project.
The importance of context
In document management, the real issue is not storing the file, but having it appear in front of you at the right moment. A product’s assembly drawing is as meaningful at order
entry, on the production work order, and in the service record as it is on the product record. In Minerva, the file sits in a single place, but it is visible in every context to which it is linked.
Separate document system
The file sits on a shared drive or in a separate portal.
The user leaves the ERP screen, searches for the right folder, and tries to find the right version.
Authorization is managed separately in two separate systems; the two drift apart over time.
Minerva
The file is accessed through the business object it is linked to.
The product’s drawing and technical document are reached without leaving the order form.
Authorization is defined in one place; files and business data use the same authorization model.
Personal activity management
Tasks and to-dos
Tasks assigned to individuals are kept and tracked in the system. A task acquires its context when it is linked to a business object: a task tied to a customer’s order is also visible from the order’s screen.
Completed work
The work done by any user or person is recorded in full detail. This meets two separate needs: visibility of workload and retrospective traceability.
When a customer says “this was discussed before,” you open the record instead of searching for who did what and when. In the event of a staff change, the handover is based on records, not on verbal transfer.
Visibility, not measurement.
The purpose of the activity record is not to monitor employees, but to know where the work stands. The system cannot make this distinction — corporate culture does. What the system provides is that the decision rests on data.
Corporate activity and event management
Events the company organizes or attends are managed in the system.
Activity - Event types
Trade fairs
Trips
Presentations
Sports activities
Arts activities
Other corporate events
Having a trade fair recorded in the system has a concrete payoff
The people met at the fair are linked to business partner records, the resulting quotations and orders to that event, and the expenses to the relevant budget item. Instead of estimating the return on the event at year end, you can measure it.
Meeting Management
All meetings, whatever their purpose, can be managed from the system.
Scope
Participants — in full detail.
Meeting agenda — the topics discussed and the conclusions reached.
Meeting minutes — the record of the outcome and its distribution to the relevant people.
A meeting record can also be linked to a business object. A price negotiation held with a supplier is visible from that supplier’s record; a project meeting from the project’s screen.
Meetings are where corporate memory is lost most often
Even if the decision itself is recorded, which discussion that decision came out of is usually lost. When the same topic is reopened a year later, you start from scratch.
Personal messaging system
Every user can send a message to another user or a user group from within the system. It works like e-mail; the difference is that the message stays where the work happens.
Let us explain why this matters with an example
An order has a special delivery condition, and sales and logistics are discussing it between themselves. When this conversation takes place in a messaging app, it is visible nowhere when the order is queried three months later.
With in-system messaging, the conversation is tied to that order.
With in-house messaging
Internal communication runs under the same authorization model as business data.
The conversation stays in the context of the related business object.
When an employee leaves, the correspondence remains with the organization, not in a personal account.
E-mail system
Once you have configured the e-mail system, you can send and receive all mail through Minerva. The Minerva e-mail component has all the features expected of e-mail.
If you use another system
Even if your e-mail traffic runs through another service — corporate Gmail, Exchange, or similar — the mail can be transferred into Minerva. The concrete benefit of this transfer is this:
the e-mails are linked to the customer, supplier, personnel, and other records in the system and become an integrated part of the system.
Hierarchical visibility
Within the defined hierarchical authorization framework, all non-personal e-mails become visible. The payoff in daily work is clear:
When a sales representative goes on leave, the correspondence with the customer remains accessible.
In an order dispute, it can be found which condition was accepted in which correspondence.
When an employee leaves, the corporate correspondence history stays with the company.
The newcomer starts work by reading the history of the account they have taken over.
There is a matter here that requires care.
Access to employee correspondence is an area that must be regulated in terms of personal data protection law (KVKK) and labor law. Minerva makes this access technically possible and restricts it with hierarchical authorization; however, determining the scope, informing
employees, and separating personal correspondence is a policy decision of the organization. We recommend that you define this policy together with us during the project — the fact that it is technically feasible does not mean that every scope is appropriate.
Work and request management
All users, within their authorization, can create work and request records and track their outcome. All work and request records can be linked to any kind of business object in the system — order, delivery note, invoice, production work order, project, and others.
Work and request types
Request – Demand
Issue – Problem
Accident – Incident
Suggestion – Idea
Complaint
Having these types defined separately is a deliberate choice. An accident record and a suggestion record are not the same thing; they need to be handled differently, closed within different timeframes, and
reported differently. When they are gathered in a single “request” pool, this distinction is lost.
The value of linking
When it is known which production work order a problem record is tied to, you can also see the other problems arising from the same work order. When it is known which delivery note a customer complaint
is tied to, you can check the other items in that shipment. Without the link, none of this can be done; each record becomes a standalone piece of text.
Call center system
All calls coming from customers, suppliers, personnel, and every kind of business partner are kept in the system, managed, and their outcomes tracked. Requests, complaints, thanks, problem reports — all are recorded.
All calls can be linked to all transactions in the system. This takes the call center out of being a separate unit.
Separate call system
The agent keeps the customer on the phone, opens the ERP screen separately, and searches for the order number.
Between the call record and the order record there is only a reference typed into a free-text field.
The question “How many times has this customer called, and were they all about the same product?” cannot be answered.
Minerva
When a call is opened, the business partner’s entire history, open orders, and previous calls are visible.
The call is linked directly to the related order or delivery note.
Call density by product, customer, or region can be reported directly.
The most concrete benefit of having call data in the same place as business data is on the quality side
If there is an increase in calls about products from a particular production batch, you do not need to compare two systems to see it.
Legal cases management
In Minerva, it is possible to track all legal cases and matters, whether the company’s or its personnel’s, in the greatest detail.
Scope
Case Tracking: Detailed tracking of all hearings, participants, and events
Documentation Management: The ability to upload documents from all stages of the proceedings into the system
Financial Tracking: All payments made, expenses
AI Commentary: All case proceedings can be interpreted by Artificial Intelligence and the commentary uploaded into the system.
This provides a great advantage, especially for companies with many personnel and/or companies in which legal cases are frequent.
The hidden cost of separate systems
For each of these components, there are separate and good products on the market. An ECM for documents, a mail infrastructure for e-mail, a work tracking tool for tasks, a ticketing system for calls. None of them is a bad product.
The problem is not in the products, but in the gap between them. That gap is always filled at a price.
The price
Integration development. The initial setup cost is visible; the real cost is the recurring maintenance every time either side moves to a new version.
Duplicate user management. The same person is defined in more than one system. Making sure all accounts are closed when someone leaves is a separate process.
Diverging authorization models. A user may be able to see in the document system data they cannot see in the ERP. Over time, this turns into a security gap that goes unnoticed.
Disconnected reporting. The number of calls is in one place, the number of orders in another. A third tool is needed to combine the two.
User friction. Switching screens takes seconds; when repeated thirty times a day, it never becomes a habit, and records are not kept.
Total license burden. Four separate subscriptions are paid for the same user.
The most common mistake in integration projects
Is assuming the cost is one-off. Yet integration is not an installation but a lifelong maintenance obligation. When one of the systems moves to a new version, the invoice arrives again.
What this structure gains you
A technical question during order entry
In separate systems: while the customer waits on the phone, the representative opens the shared drive to find the product’s drawing and tries to locate the right version.
In Minerva, the product’s drawing, technical document, and all attributes are displayed without leaving the order form.
A customer complaint comes in
In separate systems: a call record is opened, the order information is searched for by hand, and the related correspondence is in someone else’s mailbox.
In Minerva, the call is linked to the related order; the correspondence, documents, and previous requests for that order are visible on the same screen.
A sales representative leaves the company
In separate systems: customer correspondence stays in a personal mailbox, notes in personal files, and verbal commitments nowhere at all.
In Minerva, within the hierarchical authorization framework, correspondence, task history, and meeting notes remain with the organization; the person taking over starts by reading the context.
A recurring problem with the same product
In separate systems: call records are in the ticketing system, production data in the ERP. The link is made only if someone happens to notice.
In Minerva, because calls are linked to production work orders, concentration by batch is reported directly.
Post-trade-fair evaluation
In separate systems: the fair expenses are in accounting, the people met in a spreadsheet, the incoming orders in the ERP. The return is calculated by hand.
In Minerva, the event is a record; contacts, quotations, orders, and expenses are linked to it. The return is a calculable number.
A decision from a year ago is questioned
In separate systems: the meeting note is on someone’s computer, and the discussion that led to the decision is nowhere.
In Minerva, the meeting agenda, discussion, and outcome are recorded and linked to the related business object.
Summary comparison
Topic
ERP plus separate products
Minerva
Location of the components
Outside the ERP core, connected by bridges
Designed at the center of the system
Linking
Through integration development, within a limited scope
Default behavior; every component with every business object
Document access
On a separate platform; the user switches screens
Visible on every transaction screen it is linked to
E-mail
Scattered across personal mailboxes
Linked to business partner and transaction records, visible under hierarchical authorization
Requests and calls
Separate ticketing system; weak link to business data
Linked directly to orders, delivery notes, work orders, and projects
Authorization
Separate in each product; diverges over time
A single authorization model, valid across all components
Reporting
An additional tool is needed to combine
All data in the same system; cross-analysis is direct
Version upgrades
Every bridge is retested
One system, one version
Corporate memory
Scattered across individuals and separate platforms
Gathered around the business object
The work itself and everything around the work, in the same place
An order has a record in the system. But everything that revolves around that order —
the correspondence with the customer, the technical drawing sent, the delivery condition discussed with the internal team,
the complaint that came later and the promise that was made — sits elsewhere in most organizations.
The work itself is in the system; the story of the work is not.
Minerva does not separate these two. If you would like to see where these components would fit
in your own processes, we can start by discussing together the point where you lose
the most context today.