Compare the operating models
In this fictional example, Filter F1 fits supplied device D1. F2 fits only D2. F3 fits D1 under a supplied customer agreement. The catalogue must help staff suggest F3 without presenting all filters as the same item. These compatibility facts are invented for the worksheet.
| Business requirement | Merge into one product | Separate products with relationships |
|---|---|---|
| Different physical item | Receipt and return identity lost | Each has its own SKU |
| F3 candidate replacement | No record of what was chosen | F1 → F3 with supplied condition |
| F2 related filter | Could imply incorrect interchangeability | Related browsing link only |
Work through the chosen model
Retain product SKU and model-fit evidence. A substitute relationship stores original product, candidate, scope and supplied conditions. The order line records the item actually accepted and dispatched, while a link retains the buyer’s initial request.
- Read the requested item and use
- Offer a scoped candidate
- Record the chosen product
Separate SKUs preserve truthful fulfilment but the relationship needs maintained fit evidence. A related-products link cannot stand in for a suitability assessment.
For a D1 request, offer F3 under the supplied agreement; exclude F2 as a substitute. If accepted, dispatch F3 and reduce F3 stock, never F1 stock.
When the other model fits
F1 and F3 are merely two supplier names for the same supplied physical item. Is a substitute link required?
Show the worked answer
Not necessarily. Review supplier-item mapping instead of inventing separate products solely from naming.