The quote is correct; the seller is not
Imagine managing two companies that sell to the same customer. You prepare a correct quote, but associate it with the wrong selling company. Before asking for more automation, you need three answers at each step: who is selling, who may see the case and who authorises its next action.
To assess AlphaCRM with Adaris, bring a worksheet with two fictional companies, one shared customer and a journey from opportunity to reviewed quote. This guide provides that worksheet, errors worth introducing in an agreed demonstration and a pilot proposal. The steps are evaluation criteria, not screen instructions or a promise of features or availability.
Two companies are more than two sales labels
First clarify what you are separating. Teams within one company may need team owners and access rules. Separate companies need explicit rules for case ownership, authorised people and which data may be shared with permission. A matching customer name does not establish that permission.
When discussing AlphaCRM, ask Adaris to specify the demonstrable scope of the multi-company flow: active company, user access and the operation journey. Request evidence for your complete case and agree exclusions. A limited demonstration does not establish a complete deployment or replace business acceptance.
The input worksheet: one customer, two cases
Every name and identifier below is invented and represents no actual customer. A and B are separate sellers; C-01 represents the same fictional customer in both cases. Amounts, terms and recipients remain to be agreed rather than copied from the other case.
| Field | Case A | Case B |
|---|---|---|
| Selling company | Company A · example | Company B · example |
| Customer | Customer C-01 · fictional | Customer C-01 · fictional |
| Need | Supply a batch of counters | Maintain existing counters |
| Proposed reference | A-OP-01 | B-OP-01 |
| Proposed owner | Example user Ana, access to A | Example user Bruno, access to B |
| Initial status | Scope needs defining | Scope needs defining |
| Proposed output | Reviewed draft quote from A | Reviewed draft quote from B |
Map the journey before asking AI to carry it out
Step 1: record the seller and owner when the request arrives. Step 2: relate the customer to that case under the agreed sharing rule. Step 3: collect scope, line items and outstanding terms. Step 4: prepare the draft and review company, recipient, version and content. Step 5: a person authorises the next step and the decision is recorded.
This is a proposed evaluation journey, not an AlphaCRM button sequence. Missing information should lead to a question or a visible exception. In this example, “prepare the same thing for the other company” is insufficient to select a seller, copy terms or send a document.
Keep the first trial to drafts. Separate commercial review from sending, customer acceptance and any subsequent invoice. Agreeing a quotation flow does not establish tax-compliant invoicing or accounting integration.
The useful test begins when you switch companies
Ask Adaris to agree these cases with you and show what can be checked within the proposed scope. Record observed, unobserved or out of scope beside each case and its evidence. The table is a proposed acceptance list, not a report of tests AlphaCRM has already passed.
| Proposed case | What to observe | What would prevent accepting the case |
|---|---|---|
| Ana opens A-OP-01 | Correct Company A context and agreed case access | Company B data appears outside the intended permission |
| Switch from A to B | Current context and displayed data belong to B | The old A draft is presented as current |
| Same customer in A and B | Each case retains its own seller and terms | Cases are merged solely because the customer matches |
| A request omits the company | Clarification comes before preparing the operation | The seller is guessed |
| Remove a permission during the trial | Access is checked again before proceeding | The operation relies on the removed permission |
| Repeat an interrupted request | Establish what completed before continuing | Two drafts are created without checking the first |
A manual assistant can organise the worksheet; connecting it is another decision
To prepare for the meeting, try a manual assistant with this fictional example: “Organise A-OP-01 and B-OP-01 as separate cases. List the seller, owner, missing information and required review for each. Ask when information is missing. Invent no amounts, permissions or terms; prepare no dispatch”. Check its output against the worksheet.
That conversation does not demonstrate that the assistant can read or write in AlphaCRM. A connected automation needs agreed operations, permissions, confirmations, error handling and outcome records. Ask to review the same case through the agreed manual and assisted journeys, without assuming connectors to your email, ERP or calendar.
Practise with fictional data only. Before sharing real information, agree authorisation, processing terms and a suitable channel. The responsible person retains review of commercial data and the document.
What to compare when choosing a multi-company CRM
Odoo documentation distinguishes shared records from company-specific ones. Zoho explains that accessing multiple organisations with one account does not itself synchronise their data. These raise separate selection questions: what can you open, and what information is shared?
Ask each supplier to demonstrate that distinction using the same worksheet. This comparison establishes no product equivalence, purchase recommendation or compatibility with AlphaCRM. The guide attributes no savings or superior outcomes to a supplier.
A pilot that ends with a concrete decision
Propose a pilot limited to the two fictional cases, with agreed people and permissions. Before starting, record the manual preparation time for the same worksheet and define a correct draft. Then agree criteria with Adaris; this guide prescribes no universal time or accuracy threshold.
During the trial, record completed cases, seller errors, observed unauthorised access, missing information, repetitions and review time. Keep evidence for each case. A trial with no observed errors does not demonstrate a general absence of failures; record what was not tested too.
The output should be a decision: extend the trial, correct a rule or reconsider scope. Importing historical records, sharing a catalogue or connecting another system requires an integration with its own checks. For the first enquiry, send the process description and fictional worksheet; ask Adaris to assess AlphaCRM fit and agree what can be demonstrated. Commercial contact is in Spanish.
Related services
Sources
Do your two companies need to separate this flow?
Describe the companies, case and reviewer. Discuss AlphaCRM fit and demonstrable scope; commercial contact is in Spanish.