The Inventory Manager Is Held Responsible for Numbers the System Cannot Verify

Finding a discrepancy is not the same as knowing what caused it.

The stock count is finished. The system says 1,240 units are available. The warehouse team has counted 1,187.

Dispatch is waiting to know what can ship. Finance wants an explanation before month end. Procurement needs to decide whether to reorder. Sales has already promised some of that stock to a customer. And someone in management has asked a simple question: who is responsible for this?

On paper, the answer is the inventory manager.

This is an illustrative scenario, not an account of any specific company or customer.

Now that person has to explain a gap of 53 units. They know the gap exists. They may have no way of knowing where it came from. Some goods may have been picked but not yet recorded. A transfer between locations may still be waiting for confirmation. A delivery may have reached the dock and never been posted. A return may be sitting in a corner, received but not reconciled. Any of these could explain the difference, and so could something else.

The count shows that the records and the shelves disagree. It does not show when they started to disagree, or why.

This article is for the person who has to explain stock discrepancies but cannot trace every movement that produced them. It is also for the managers and executives who rely on that person's numbers.

Accountability without evidence

Being responsible for inventory accuracy and being able to prove why the records are wrong are two different things.

A business can assign the first very clearly and never build the second. It can have an inventory system, regular stock counts and detailed reports, and still lack a complete record of how goods actually moved. In that situation the inventory manager owns the reconciliation but does not control the events that created the difference. They discover the problem. They are then expected to explain it.

That gap, between accountability and evidence, is where this problem lives.

Automated storage is not the same as inventory visibility

Consider a warehouse that stores pallets deep inside its lanes using a radio shuttle racking system. Depending on how the lanes are configured, reaching one pallet may mean moving others first. The equipment moves pallets in and out of storage efficiently. A different question remains: can the inventory manager reliably say what is on each pallet and where it sits?

If the records do not consistently connect a product to its pallet, its storage position and its movement history, someone may have to order a physical retrieval just to confirm something the system should already know. That costs time, delays decisions and makes discrepancies harder to investigate.

This is another illustrative scenario. We are not suggesting that radio shuttle systems lack this capability. Whether the records hold up depends on how the equipment, the identification process and the warehouse management system are set up and connected.

The problem here is not the storage equipment. It is the gap between the physical warehouse and the information used to manage it. A warehouse can automate the movement of pallets without having complete visibility of the inventory those pallets hold.

Where discrepancies can begin

A difference found at the stock count may have started days or weeks earlier, at a different point in the process and under someone else's control. Common starting points include:

• Goods received but not recorded promptly.
• Stock transferred without a confirmed transaction.
• Items picked or dispatched before the record is updated.
• Returns waiting for reconciliation.
• Manual adjustments made without enough supporting evidence.

These are possible causes. They are not findings from a national survey, and we are not claiming that any of them is typical of Nigerian businesses. We are describing how a physical movement and its record can drift apart, because that is the mechanism the inventory manager has to untangle.

The inventory manager is the last link in a long chain

Inventory accuracy is not an inventory department problem. It depends on everything that moves goods through the business: receiving, storage, picking, internal transfers, consumption in production, returns and dispatch. Each of those is done by different people, often in different places, sometimes on different systems.

When these activities are disconnected, the inventory manager inherits their inconsistencies. The stock count sits at the end of the chain. It is where every earlier gap finally becomes visible, and so it is where the blame tends to land.

Why this matters in money

Stock is a large financial position for Nigerian manufacturers. According to Leadership's analysis of Q1 2026 results, manufacturers listed on the Nigerian Exchange entered the second quarter of 2026 with combined inventories of about ₦1.77 trillion, up 10.6 per cent year on year, while their combined cost of sales rose 13.7 per cent to ₦1.434 trillion.

That figure is a reported balance. It says nothing about whether those records are accurate, and we are not suggesting they are not. Its value for this discussion is scale. When businesses carry stock on that scale, purchasing, production planning, financial reporting and customer commitments all rest on the records that describe it. Reliable inventory information is not an administrative detail.

Visibility is hard, and technology alone does not fix it

Wider research points the same way. A 2026 study in Procedia Computer Science by researchers at the University of Hertfordshire, Investigating Barriers to Supply Chain Visibility and Implications for Transparency in Nigeria, surveyed 204 supply chain professionals across industries in Nigeria. It found that the most significant barriers to visibility were not primarily technological. Poor transport infrastructure, regulatory and customs delays and unreliable power supply ranked as the top three. The authors also suggest that technology improves visibility only when it is supported by reliable infrastructure and efficient processes.

We should be precise about what this study does and does not show. It looks at supply chain visibility, not warehouse stock records, and it does not measure how often counts and systems disagree. What it supports is a principle: information does not exist independently of the processes and conditions through which goods move. One plausible way this reaches the warehouse floor is simple. When a terminal or connection is down, movements get written on paper and keyed in later, and the record falls behind the shelf.

A precise number is not a verified number

A report can show a quantity to the last unit and still describe the operation inaccurately. The system's ability to produce a number says very little about whether the number is true.

The better question is whether the business can trace that number to a recorded event and establish what physically happened. If it can, the figure is verifiable. If it cannot, the figure is an estimate that happens to look exact.

This is also why more counting does not solve the problem by itself. Counting finds discrepancies and tells you how large the gap is on the day. It does not stop the same errors recurring, because the errors are created upstream, where goods move and records are updated.

What businesses should change

Start by finding out where physical movements and recorded transactions diverge. Work out which activities depend on manual entries, delayed updates, disconnected systems or informal handovers. Then decide how each movement should be recorded, reconciled and investigated. In practice, that means:

1. Record stock movements where they happen. The longer the gap between a movement and its record, the more room there is for the two to disagree.
2. Give every transaction a clear owner. When a movement is confirmed, someone specific should be responsible for confirming it.
3. Reconcile physical movement with system records regularly, not only at the count.
4. Investigate discrepancies by tracing events, not only by adjusting the number. An adjustment closes the gap on paper without explaining it.
5. Use exception reporting to spot recurring problems. If the same kind of discrepancy keeps appearing at the same point, that point is the real subject of the investigation.
6. Introduce scanning, integration or automation where they close a gap you have identified.

That last step comes last on purpose. A scanner will not fix a transfer nobody confirms. Integration will not help if the real problem is an informal handover. Technology can be very useful, but the right solution depends on where the discrepancy actually starts. We would be wary of any claim that software alone will remove inventory discrepancies.

Accountability needs evidence

In the terms we used in The Difference Between Visibility, Control and Intelligence in Complex Operations, the inventory manager in our scenario has visibility of a result: the count. What they lack is visibility of the movements behind it, control at the points where movements are confirmed, and the intelligence that comes from seeing patterns in exceptions. As we argued in Why Operational Visibility Must Come Before Automation, that foundation has to exist before anything is automated.

Businesses should not only ask who is responsible for an inventory discrepancy. They should ask whether their processes and records make it possible to say what happened, when it happened and why. If the answer is no, the discrepancy is not really the inventory manager's failure. It is a gap in how the operation records its own movements.

If you manage inventory, where do discrepancies most often begin in your operation: receiving, internal transfers, picking, dispatch or reconciliation?

---

---

Further reading:

• The Difference Between Visibility, Control and Intelligence in Complex Operations
• Why Operational Visibility Must Come Before Automation
• Your Factory Doesn't Have a Production Problem. It Has a Visibility Problem.
• How to Detect Engineering Bottlenecks Before They Become Operational Problems
• Nigeria's Industrial Performance Problem Is Not Just About Growth

Sources:

• Leadership, Manufacturers' Unsold Goods Jump 10.6% to N1.77trn In Q1 (combined inventories and cost of sales of NGX-listed manufacturers)
• Sunmola, F. and Apeji, D. U. (2026), Investigating Barriers to Supply Chain Visibility and Implications for Transparency in Nigeria, Procedia Computer Science, 277, pp. 3034-3045 (full text PDF)

The inventory and racking scenarios above are illustrative. Neither source measures inventory record accuracy or how often inventory managers are held responsible for discrepancies.

Joshua Otomo is Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Tennext Core Ltd (TENNXT), an enterprise systems integrator focused on intelligent software, industrial automation and operational analytics. He writes about how large organisations get technology projects right and, more often, why they don't.

Contact: hello@tennxt.com · www.tennxt.com