Compare the operating models
In this fictional example, supplied group G has buyers A/B. A’s outlets A1/A2 share billing account A; B pays separately. A flat branch list obscures who trades and who merely receives goods.
| Business requirement | Flat customer list | Group/buyer/outlet hierarchy |
|---|---|---|
| G reporting | Name matching | G links A/B |
| A2 order | May invent payer A2 | Buyer A, outlet A2 |
| B order | Could inherit A terms | Buyer/payer B |
Work through the chosen model
Map G → A/B and A → A1/A2. Orders name buyer and outlet. Group links aggregate reporting; they do not authorise charging one member for another member’s order.
- Select buyer and outlet
- Apply supplied account context
- Aggregate through group links
Hierarchy helps account reporting but needs upkeep. Avoid layers without separate terms or a real reporting purpose.
A2 is billed to A and delivered to A2. B stays B’s order. G can aggregate both without being the payer.
When the other model fits
A2 becomes an independent buyer with its own terms. Can it stay only an outlet?
Show the worked answer
No. Add the trading-account distinction and retain its group link.