Introduction
Towards the digital deadline of 29 November 2026, many trailer builders and bodybuilders ask the same thing: should we keep doing this ourselves, or is there a tool that fits our scale?
Manual can work. A platform can work. It depends on volume, error tolerance and how strict your markets are at submission. No scare story — an honest comparison.
What “manual” means in practice
Manual usually means:
- building or converting XML (editor, Excel, scripts);
- maintaining XSD/ICM rules yourself;
- signing via a separate QTSP flow;
- submitting via a portal or API outside your workflow;
- archiving in folders and mail.
For one or two types and very low volumes that can work — if someone in-house can handle XML and rule updates. The cost is then not software, but time and risk at the first rejection.
Also count the hidden hours: keeping Messagebook/ICM current, QTSP validation of the company seal, aligning names (trade register = type approval = certificate), and briefing a colleague who takes over the dossier during holiday. That is not an “IT project”, but it is operational load.
Where it hurts at NAP and seal
Checks too late. Without a pre-check against XSD and ICM you discover errors only at the NAP. Every rejection is rework: data, re-sign, re-submit.
Signing as a separate step. A qualified seal or QES via eID Easy belongs to the manufacturer (company name on the certificate). Separate from the XML tool means switching systems and more risk of “wrong file signed”.
Corrections. After submission to some NAPs you can no longer delete. You need versions and history. Folder structures lose that quickly.
Archive. Retention is long (order of magnitude: ten years, traceable). Spreadsheets and shared drives are weak evidence at audit.
When a platform makes sense
An eCoC platform (such as On-Road) makes sense if at least two of these apply:
- You issue eCoCs yourself (trailers O1–O4, multi-stage bodybuild, small series M/N/O).
- You want no ERP project to start — just a template per type approval.
- You want to validate before signing (XSD + current ICM).
- You want EU NAP submission on the platform, with status and reference.
- You want a 10-year archive and audit log without building the IT yourself.
Then the question shifts from “can we do XML?” to “how fast is the first correct dossier ready?”
A realistic scenario
You deliver a trailer (O) or a bodybuild. The customer wants to register. The NAP rejects the file because of an ICM rule or a missing field. Without pre-validation you discover that late. With a platform you see the blocker before the seal, fix it in the template, and re-submit with status and reference in one place.
For multi-stage that matters twice: an error in the base costs the bodybuilder time too. The earlier the check, the less argument between chassis supplier and bodybuilder.
What On-Road deliberately is not
- Not a technical service: type approval and inspections stay with the body you choose.
- Not a desk where a private individual orders a CoC.
- Not a replacement for heavy OEM ERPs — built for SMEs and bodybuilders, with sharp rates (amounts in the demo, not on the site).
The platform is live SaaS from Certiflow BV in Belgium, in collaboration with Ballistix (part of Vandelanotte). Signing via eID Easy (QES or eSeal, depending on plan).
Soft takeaway
Manual remains possible at very low volumes and strong in-house knowledge. Once volume, multi-stage or NAP errors cost time, a platform wins on checks before seal, versions and archive. No competitor comparison needed: look at your own error load of the last months.
CTA: Unsure whether a tool pays off for your volumes? Book a short demo. We look at your types together — no prices on the website, a proposal after the call.