Direct answer: A master-data migration/cleansing project acceptance page is not a line saying "data migrated, system live". The page should state: project scope and goals (supplier/material/price/contract/category/organisation/customer/bank domains, source/target systems, in-scope/out-of-scope, success criteria, data volume, cutover window); current-state inventory and data profiling (source list, completeness/duplicates/format/relationships, owner/steward, retention/archive); mapping and cleansing rules (source-to-target field mapping, coding/naming/classification/unit/currency/tax code, deduplication/merge, defaults/exceptions, approval, audit trail); trial migration and reconciliation (sample/full, quantity/amount/status reconciliation, issue log, fix/re-run, sign-off); cutover/rollback/post-go-live (freeze, sequence, rollback, parallel run, go-live checks, hypercare); public boundary. On the rules: MOF Internal Control Application Guideline No. 18 (Information Systems) requires system development, change, operation, security and data controls; No. 7 (Procurement) requires procurement records/traceability and supplier/price/contract controls; No. 8 (Asset Management) requires inventory records/stock reconciliation/count. This article is current to 2026-11-10 and is a summary of public rules and page method, not data-governance/IT-audit advice; the company's master-data policy, migration plan, system configuration and data standards control.
This article is for procurement, IT, finance, internal-control, audit, data-governance and website teams at equipment, electronics, automotive-parts, medical-device, hardware, chemical, packaging and export manufacturers in Changzhou and nearby. It covers how to write and accept a master-data migration/cleansing project acceptance page. The usual gap is "unclear scope, source data not inventoried, arbitrary mapping, cleansing rules without approval, trial migration without reconciliation, cutover without rollback, no post-go-live ownership", ending with a page that only says "data migrated, system live", while reconciliation/reporting/audit still disagree.
First define scope and success criteria: which domains, from where to where, how much data, when to cut over. Then profile and map: source issues, field mapping, cleansing/dedup rules, approval/trail. Finally trial-migrate and reconcile: sample/full, quantity/amount/status, issue closure, cutover/rollback/go-live checks. "Data migrated" is not enough.
How does this page relate to master-data quality, ERP/SRM implementation, supplier portal, inventory count and information-security pages?
The migration/cleansing project page answers "what this project migrates, how to map/cleanse, how to trial/reconcile, how to cut over/roll back"; the master-data quality page answers "ongoing domains/coding/governance/quality metrics"; the ERP/SRM implementation page answers "system scope/process/interfaces/go-live"; the supplier portal/SRM page answers "registration/RFQ/order/ASN"; the inventory-count page answers "count/variance/stock reconciliation"; the information-security page answers "classification/access/transmission/incidents". The migration project is the main page for "one-time delivery" and cannot be replaced by an ongoing master-data quality page.
Common breaks: scope creep/missing domains; source data not inventoried; arbitrary mapping; cleansing rules without approval; direct deletion of duplicates; trial migration without reconciliation; issues not closed; cutover without rollback; no post-go-live checks; missing permissions/audit; data/privacy leakage. The page separates "scope—profiling—mapping/cleansing—trial/reconciliation—cutover/rollback—post-go-live—public boundary" so procurement/IT/finance/internal-control/audit/data governance share one vocabulary.
| Page | Question it answers | Key content | Cannot replace |
|---|---|---|---|
| Migration/cleansing | What to migrate/how to map/cut over | Scope, profiling, mapping, trial, cutover | Ongoing data quality |
| Master-data quality | Domains/coding/governance/metrics | Standards, owner, metrics, audit | Project delivery |
| ERP/SRM implementation | System scope/process/interfaces/go-live | Modules, process, interfaces, training | Data cleansing/reconciliation |
| Supplier portal | Registration/RFQ/order/ASN | Account, order, ASN | Historical data migration |
| Inventory count | Count/variance/reconciliation | Count, variance, adjustment | Master-data mapping |
| Information security | Classification/access/transmission/incidents | Permissions, encryption, incidents | Data quality/reconciliation |
Page relationships are editorial; the company's master-data policy, migration plan and system configuration control.
How should project scope, goals and success criteria be accepted?
Scope should state at least: data domains (supplier/material/price/contract/category/organisation/cost centre/customer/bank/payment terms/tax code); source systems (ERP/SRM/MDM/Excel/legacy) → target system; in-scope/out-of-scope (historical years, inactive data, attachments/documents); data volume (rows/attachments/interfaces); cutover window/downtime; success criteria (quantity/amount/quality/reconciliation variance/go-live date). Goals should be verifiable: e.g. "supplier/material master data 100% migrated, key-field completeness ≥X, duplicate rate ≤Y, quantity/amount reconciliation variance = 0, trial migration signed off"; specific values are company-defined. The project should also state roles (business owner, data steward, IT, supplier), plan/milestones, risks/dependencies.
Acceptance checks: domain list; source/target; in/out of scope; data volume; success criteria; roles; plan; risks. Common gaps: scope creep; missing domains; unclear history/inactive; vague success criteria; unclear roles.
| Element | What to write | Evidence | Common gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data domains | Supplier/material/price/contract/category/organisation/customer/bank | List | Missing domain |
| Source/target | ERP/SRM/MDM/Excel/legacy → target | Architecture | Unclear source |
| In/out of scope | Historical years/inactive/attachments/documents | Scope note | Creep |
| Data volume | Rows/attachments/interfaces/incremental | Statistics | Estimate |
| Success criteria | Quantity/amount/quality/variance/date | Metrics | Vague |
| Roles | Business owner/steward/IT/supplier | Appointment | Unclear |
| Plan | Milestones/dependencies/window | Plan | No milestones |
| Risks | Data/system/resource/compliance | List | Not assessed |
Scope/goals are editorial; the migration plan, master-data policy and project charter control.
How should current-state inventory and data profiling be accepted?
Inventory should state at least: source system/table/field/rows/owner; data dictionary/field meaning/type/length/required/enumeration; data-quality profiling (completeness/uniqueness/format/range/relationships/timeliness); duplicates/aliases/one material multiple codes/one code multiple materials; unit/currency/tax code/organisation mapping; attachments/documents/images; history/inactive/archive; permissions/sensitive data. Profiling output: issue list/samples/impact/priority/recommendation, confirmed by business owner/steward. Guideline No. 7 requires procurement records/traceability; No. 8 requires inventory records/stock reconciliation; No. 18 requires system data controls. Profiling is not just running a script; it needs business confirmation and remediation priority.
Acceptance checks: source list/dictionary; rows; quality dimensions; duplicates/aliases; unit/currency/tax; attachments; history/inactive; sensitive data; issue list. Common gaps: no dictionary; no profiling; duplicates unclear; units/currencies mixed; sensitive data unidentified.
| Item | What to write | Evidence | Common gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source list | System/table/field/rows/owner | List | Incomplete |
| Dictionary | Meaning/type/length/required/enumeration | Dictionary | No dictionary |
| Quality profiling | Completeness/uniqueness/format/range/relationships/timeliness | Report | No profiling |
| Duplicates/aliases | Duplicates/aliases/one-material-multiple-codes | List | Unclear |
| Unit/currency/tax | Unit/currency/tax code/organisation mapping | Crosswalk | Mixed |
| Attachments/documents | Attachments/images/documents/paths | List | Missing |
| History/inactive | History/inactive/archive/retention | Rule | Migrate all |
| Sensitive data | Bank/personal data/permissions | Classification | Unidentified |
Inventory/profiling are editorial; the data standards, system dictionary and migration plan control.
How should mapping and cleansing rules be accepted?
Mapping should state at least: source field → target field, transformation rules (code/name/classification/unit/currency/tax code/date/status), required/default/exception, value mapping table, ID mapping (old ID → new ID), relationships/hierarchy (supplier-bank, material-BOM, price-contract). Cleansing: standardisation/trim/case/unit conversion/currency/tax code; deduplication/merge (rules, master record, impact, history/audit); missing/exception handling (fill/default/reject); approval (business owner/steward/data governance); trail (rule version/approval/execution log); rollback/re-run. Merging must not delete directly; keep old IDs/mapping/history. Guideline No. 18 requires system change/data controls; No. 7 requires procurement record traceability.
Acceptance checks: field mapping; transformation rules; default/exception; value mapping; ID mapping; relationships; dedup/merge; missing/exception; approval; trail; rollback. Common gaps: arbitrary mapping; no value mapping; direct deletion; no approval; no old-ID mapping; unclear rule version.
| Item | What to write | Evidence | Common gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Field mapping | Source→target/type/length | Mapping sheet | Arbitrary |
| Transformation | Code/name/classification/unit/currency/tax/date/status | Rule | Inconsistent |
| Default/exception | Required/default/exception/reject | Rule | No exception |
| Value mapping | Enumeration/code/unit/currency/tax | Crosswalk | No mapping |
| ID mapping | Old ID→new ID/relationship/hierarchy | Mapping sheet | Broken link |
| Dedup/merge | Rule/master record/impact/history/audit | Record | Direct delete |
| Approval | Business owner/steward/governance | Approval | No approval |
| Trail/rollback | Rule version/log/re-run/rollback | Log | No version |
Mapping/cleansing are editorial; the data standards, migration plan and system configuration control.
How should trial migration and reconciliation be accepted?
Trial migration should state at least: environment (test/pre-production/production), rounds, scope (sample/full), data volume, time window; execution (extract/transform/load/validate); reconciliation (source/target rows, key fields, amount/quantity, status, relationships/hierarchy, attachments); variance categories (missing/duplicate/error/truncation/coding/amount) and thresholds; issue log (finding/owner/fix/re-run/recheck/close); business sample confirmation (procurement/finance/warehouse/quality); sign-off/production admission. Guideline No. 7 requires records/traceability; No. 8 requires stock reconciliation; No. 18 requires system change/data controls. Trial migration is not "the script ran"; it needs a checkable reconciliation report and business sign-off.
Acceptance checks: environment; rounds; scope; data volume; execution; reconciliation; variance; log; fix/re-run; business sign-off. Common gaps: one run only; too small a sample; no reconciliation; variances not closed; no business sign-off.
| Item | What to write | Evidence | Common gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Environment | Test/pre-production/production | Record | Direct production |
| Rounds/scope | Sample/full/data volume/window | Plan | One run |
| Execution | Extract/transform/load/validate | Log | No log |
| Reconciliation | Rows/fields/amount/quantity/status/relationships/attachments | Statement | No reconciliation |
| Variance | Category/threshold/samples | Report | Not categorised |
| Log | Finding/owner/fix/re-run/recheck/close | Log | No closure |
| Business sample | Procurement/finance/warehouse/quality confirmation | Record | No confirmation |
| Sign-off | Production admission/conditions/open items | Sign-off | No sign-off |
Trial/reconciliation are editorial; the migration plan, data standards and system capability control.
How should cutover, rollback and post-go-live be accepted?
Cutover should state at least: cutover window/downtime; freeze (legacy writes/interfaces/approvals); sequence (master data → price/contract → inventory/opening → interfaces); owners/contacts; checkpoints/Go-No-Go; rollback conditions/steps/window/data recovery; parallel run/dual run (if applicable); go-live checks (quantity/amount/status/interfaces/reports/permissions); hypercare (days/response/severity); open items/remediation. Guideline No. 18 requires system change/operation/data controls; No. 7/8 require records/stock reconciliation. Cutover is not "click go-live"; it needs a rollback plan and post-go-live checks.
Acceptance checks: window; freeze; sequence; owners; Go-No-Go; rollback; parallel; go-live checks; hypercare; open items. Common gaps: no window; no freeze; no rollback; no go-live check; no hypercare.
| Item | What to write | Evidence | Common gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Window/downtime | Time/impact/notification | Plan | No window |
| Freeze | Legacy writes/interfaces/approvals | Record | No freeze |
| Sequence | Master data→price/contract→inventory/opening→interfaces | Runbook | Wrong order |
| Owners | Role/contact/escalation | List | Unclear |
| Go-No-Go | Checkpoint/conditions/sign-off | Record | No check |
| Rollback | Conditions/steps/window/data recovery | Plan | No rollback |
| Go-live checks | Quantity/amount/status/interfaces/reports/permissions | Report | No check |
| Hypercare | Days/response/severity/open items | Record | No ownership |
Cutover/rollback/post-go-live are editorial; the migration plan, change management and system operations control.
How should the website page be written, and what must not be published?
Suggested sections: (1) project scope/goals/success criteria; (2) current-state inventory/data profiling; (3) mapping/cleansing/dedup rules; (4) trial migration/reconciliation/sign-off; (5) cutover/rollback/post-go-live; (6) contact window/update date. The public page explains "scope, method, quality, reconciliation, cutover, boundaries" and does not publish specific source/target system screenshots, table structures/fields, data volume/samples, supplier/material/price/bank information, interface addresses/accounts, issue details/undisclosed disputes or customer information. The English page should use consistent terms (master data, migration, cleansing, profiling, source-to-target mapping, deduplication/merge, trial migration, reconciliation, cutover, rollback, hypercare) and state the cut-off date.
Do not turn the migration page into "data migrated, system live", and do not claim "100% accurate/zero variance/no downtime" if it cannot be proven. The page should let procurement/IT/finance/internal-control/audit judge "what is migrated, how mapping/cleansing works, how reconciliation is closed, how cutover/rollback works", without exposing data and security details.
Go-live acceptance checklist
Ten checks: scope/goals/success criteria; source list/dictionary; profiling/issue list; field/value/ID mapping; cleansing/dedup/approval; trial migration/reconciliation/sign-off; cutover/rollback/Go-No-Go; go-live checks/hypercare; permissions/audit/privacy; public boundary. Each needs evidence and a review date. The pass standard is not "data was loaded", but that procurement/IT/finance/internal-control/audit can judge whether the migration is complete, mapping traceable, reconciliation closed and cutover reversible.
Before go-live, run a tabletop exercise with a real (redacted) data domain: inventory → profiling → mapping/cleansing → trial migration → reconciliation → variance fix → cutover → rollback drill → go-live checks, simulating "duplicate suppliers", "one material multiple codes", "mixed units/currencies" and "broken interface", to see whether the page and process work.
| Check | Pass standard | Evidence | If failed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope/goals | Domains/source-target/out-of-scope/success criteria | Plan | Add scope |
| Source list/dictionary | System/table/field/rows/dictionary | List | Add inventory |
| Profiling/issues | Quality dimensions/duplicates/units/sensitive data/issue list | Report | Add profiling |
| Mapping | Field/value/ID/relationship/hierarchy | Mapping sheet | Add mapping |
| Cleansing/dedup | Rules/approval/history/audit | Record | Add approval |
| Trial/reconciliation | Rounds/full/reconciliation/variance/log/sign-off | Report | Re-run |
| Cutover/rollback | Window/freeze/sequence/Go-No-Go/rollback | Runbook | Add plan |
| Go-live checks | Quantity/amount/status/interfaces/reports/permissions | Report | Reconcile |
| Hypercare/audit | Response/severity/open items/log/permissions | Record | Add operations |
| Public boundary | No data/systems/suppliers/interfaces | Page/permissions | Take down |
The acceptance list is editorial; the migration plan, master-data policy and audit requirements control.
Who should read it, who should not, and what decisions does it support?
For procurement, IT, finance, internal-control, audit, data-governance and website teams at equipment, electronics, automotive-parts, medical-device, hardware, chemical, packaging and export manufacturers in Changzhou and nearby; also for companies handling "scope creep, unclear source data, arbitrary mapping, cleansing without approval, trial migration without reconciliation, cutover without rollback, no post-go-live ownership". Not for teams without a master-data migration/cleansing project, or that want one page to replace data-governance/IT-audit advice.
Read it if: building a migration/cleansing project page; only "data migrated"; unclear scope; source data not inventoried; mapping without rules; cleansing/merge without approval; trial migration without reconciliation; cutover without rollback; no go-live checks; missing permissions/audit. Not suitable if: treating "migration" as "export/import"; "cleansing" as "delete duplicates"; "trial" as "run a script"; "page" as "migration plan/audit conclusion". Supports: scope/goals, profiling, mapping/cleansing, trial/reconciliation, cutover/rollback/post-go-live and public-boundary self-checks.
FAQ
What is the difference between a master-data migration/cleansing project and the master-data quality page?
The master-data quality page covers ongoing domains, coding, governance, quality metrics and owner/steward; the migration/cleansing project page covers one-time delivery: scope, source inventory/profiling, source-to-target mapping, cleansing/dedup, trial migration/reconciliation, cutover/rollback/post-go-live. They complement each other: the quality page is "ongoing operations", the migration page is "phased delivery"; one cannot replace the other.
How should project scope be defined?
State the data domains (supplier/material/price/contract/category/organisation/customer/bank, etc.), source→target systems, in-scope/out-of-scope (historical years, inactive data, attachments/documents), data volume, cutover window, success criteria (quantity/amount/quality/reconciliation variance/go-live date) and roles. Scope should be verifiable and signable, avoiding "migrate everything" creep; success criteria are company-defined by business/audit requirements, not just "go live".
What should data profiling cover?
At least: source system/table/field/rows/data dictionary; completeness/uniqueness/format/range/relationships/timeliness; duplicates/aliases/one-material-multiple-codes/one-code-multiple-materials; unit/currency/tax code/organisation mapping; attachments/documents; history/inactive; sensitive data/permissions. Output an issue list/samples/impact/priority/recommendation, confirmed by the business owner/steward. Profiling is not just a script; it needs business confirmation and remediation priority.
Who sets mapping/cleansing rules, and how are they approved?
The business owner/steward sets rules, IT implements, data governance/internal control reviews; rules should be versioned, traceable and re-runnable. Field/value/ID mapping, defaults/exceptions, dedup/merge rules, missing/exception handling all need approval; merging should retain old IDs/mapping/history/audit, not delete directly. Guideline No. 18 requires system change/data controls; No. 7 requires procurement record traceability.
How is trial migration accepted?
Run multiple trial rounds (test/pre-production) covering sample/full, row/field/amount/quantity/status/relationship/attachment reconciliation; variance categories/thresholds/samples; issue log (finding/owner/fix/re-run/recheck/close); business sample confirmation (procurement/finance/warehouse/quality); sign-off/production admission. One run or "script succeeded" is not enough; you need a checkable reconciliation report and business sign-off.
How are cutover/rollback accepted?
State the cutover window/downtime, freeze (legacy writes/interfaces/approvals), sequence (master data→price/contract→inventory/opening→interfaces), owners/contacts, Go-No-Go checkpoints, rollback conditions/steps/window/data recovery, parallel/dual run (if applicable), go-live checks (quantity/amount/status/interfaces/reports/permissions) and hypercare. Cutover is not "click go-live"; it needs a rollback plan and post-go-live checks; Guideline No. 18 requires system change/operation/data controls.
Should the website publish migration methods, data volumes and systems?
Usually not specific source/target system screenshots, table structures/fields, data volume/samples, supplier/material/price/bank information, interface addresses/accounts, issue details/undisclosed disputes or customer information; it can publish project scope/method, data quality/reconciliation principles, cutover/rollback process, contact window and update date. The goal is to let customers/partners understand delivery methods, not to disclose data and security details.
One-sentence takeaway
The master-data migration/cleansing project acceptance page on a Changzhou manufacturer's website is not about "data migrated, system live"; it is about turning scope/goals/success criteria, source list/dictionary, profiling/issue list, field/value/ID mapping, cleansing/dedup/approval, trial migration/reconciliation/sign-off, cutover/rollback/Go-No-Go, go-live checks/hypercare, permissions/audit/privacy and public boundaries into a checkable list, so procurement/IT/finance/internal-control/audit can judge whether the migration is complete, mapping traceable, reconciliation closed and cutover reversible.
Research method and limitations
This article is a summary of public rules and page method, not data-governance/IT-audit advice. It uses no unpublished company source/target systems, table structures/fields, data volume/samples, supplier/material/price/bank information, interface addresses/accounts, issue details or undisclosed disputes; the tables and acceptance items are editorial and not data-governance/IT-audit conclusions. MOF Internal Control Application Guideline No. 18 (Information Systems), No. 7 (Procurement) and No. 8 (Asset Management) are public sources; the company's master-data policy, migration plan, system configuration and data standards control. This article does not decide whether any specific migration/cleansing plan is reasonable, and does not promise "100% accurate/zero variance/no downtime"; companies should set them item by item based on domains, source/target systems, data volume and cutover requirements.
Sources and basis
Current to 2026-11-10; the official pages below control.
- MOF Internal Control Application Guideline No. 18 — Information Systems (Cai Kuai [2010] No. 11): Linyi Finance Bureau. System development, change, operation, security and data controls; used here for system change/data controls/permissions/logs in the migration project.
- MOF Internal Control Application Guideline No. 7 — Procurement (Cai Kuai [2010] No. 11): Linyi Finance Bureau. Procurement records/traceability and supplier/price/contract controls; used here for supplier/material/price/contract migration and reconciliation.
- MOF Internal Control Application Guideline No. 8 — Asset Management (Cai Kuai [2010] No. 11): Linyi Finance Bureau. Inventory records/stock reconciliation/count; used here for inventory/opening data migration and reconciliation.