Zensar and an anonymised fashion and apparel retailer: Manhattan Active Omni functional testing case analysed

Verdict: what is checkable

Client profile as published

Client

An American specialty retailer (the vendor's description; the vendor does not name the client)

Segment

Fashion and apparel

Region

North America

Channels

stores and ecommerce

Size indicators

annual revenue of $600M; 1,200+ associates

The client description and size indicators are quoted from the source; segment, region and channels are this site's classification. [ev-1740]

Systems in scope

• OMS (order management system: software that routes, splits and tracks customer orders across stores, warehouses and carriers.) (Manhattan Active Omni (MAO)): named in the Overview section (Zensar's brief)
• Integrations (Azure-based integration backbone replacing Tibco and OCI integrations): named in the Overview section (Zensar's brief) and the Solution section
• WMS (warehouse management system: software that runs receiving, storage, picking and shipping inside a distribution center.): named in the Solution section (end-to-end QA of related systems)
• Payments: named in the Solution section (end-to-end QA of related systems)
• Loyalty: named in the Solution section (end-to-end QA of related systems)

Where the source names each system is quoted or summarised from the case page. [ev-1740]

Problem as stated

The womenswear retailer had outgrown its homegrown order management stack and relied on many legacy integrations that carried business logic. It chose Manhattan Active Omni and a new Azure integration layer, and needed help to design the integrations, assess the existing ones in depth and avoid disrupting its enterprise architecture during the rollout. [ev-1740]

limitations of its homegrown order management stack (quoted from the source)

Approach

Testing types

functional and performance (main scope: functional)

Team shape

Zensar Industry Solutions and Enterprise Architecture team working with the client's team

Duration

not stated

Engagement model

not stated

Tooling named in the source

none named

Metrics claimed

What the case does not say

• Baseline before the engagement.
• Measurement method.
• Duration over which the metric held.
• Team size on both sides.
• Cost.
• What was out of scope.
• Whether the client is still a client.
• Date of the work.

Reading notes for a buyer

This case speaks to the scenario “OMS or WMS replacement” and feeds dimension D2 (Retail system coverage) of the methodology. A question to put to Zensar:

How did you run the performance benchmark across Manhattan Active Omni and the Azure integrations, and which order volumes did it use? [ev-1740]

Source and verification

Source

Large American Apparel Chain Gains Greater Business Agility

Published

not dated by the vendor

Verified

2026-10-30

Evidence grade

secondary

Corroborating sources

none found

Vendor profile: Zensar. System facet: OMS and WMS testing vendors.