Attributes that have been defined to use a System Code Type do not return the related System Code Value Description when returned by a web service method capable of returning attributes. The System Code Value is displayed, which can only be 15 characters and upper case, while the System Code Value Description can be 30 characters and would be preferred to display online. This makes it hard to rely on the web services solely to retrieve all of the information one might need.

It would be very beneficial to have a wild card search. Example: When searching in inventory we only have the benefits of searching the beginning of the description, part number, substitute item,etc. It would be very helpful to put a word in and have it search all of the descriptions and item numbers and show all items that have the same string of characters wherever they happen to be.

When running the COP open orders report it would be nice in the sub total area to know how many orders by item,Product category,customer, ship-to on summary, brief and detail COP reports.
Currently QTY, B/O Qty, Value are all being totaled except the number of orders. It appears there would be space to allow for this in the standard reports.

We constantly need to change internal priorities for deliveries after the PO has been issued to the vendor. We change the promise date to reflect this. Unfortunately the Delivery Performance Report isn't able to account for this. It still reads the original date. The vendor shouldn't be held accountable for our internal change of priority. It makes this report unusable for us. Can there be an option for the delivery report to read the adjusted promise date and not the original?

Currently, when we view the heading of an attribute tied to the customer, it is only showing the customer name, but not the customer number. If you were to view an attribute tied to an item, it shows the item number. We would like to see the customer number in the heading of the attribute, if possible.

This is a dangerous field and even if only authorized users can run the posting physical count a mistake can be made. A simple flag on the Global setup can prevent a situation where user change the N to Y. I am aware that there are warning, but from an experience with users, these warning are not preventing these mistakes where items value are zero because user changed the N to Y.

Our Vendor POs often have multiple line items delivered over two or three months. A display in PO number order would assist in checking the current status of that POs invoice/payment history.

Use the PO#-Rel-Line no,-Item number as the reference instead of the current structure that shows the meaningless PO Doc #.

Sales Desk, F5 Options, Add new Customer, doesn't allow to add a Ship To and assumes Ship To is the same as Bill To. I suggest to allow to add a Ship To.

When entering a purchase order and adding F2 comments on the line item screen, the comments are stored in the POCOMFIL table. Currently the Export Processor does not support exporting the information from this file.

We propose adding support for this file.

ATP Process Criteria menu improvement

Is it possible to make a selection (source) that a user could show either the planning suggestions LP- or LP+ instead of both on the ATP inquiry screen?

Add Job Number, etc. to IM/AR/AP/etc. distribution files (similar to BMDISFIL)

The new BMDISFIL is a tremendous source of information, containing far more relevant fields from the originating transaction than the other distribution files. Would like to see the other subledger files expanded to include relevant data from the originating transaction, similar to the BMDISFIL, including but not limited to the job number.

We seem to have a need to limit access to the "Mass Replace" function in the Bills of Material / Maintenance / Product Structure. Would be nice if there was a global security option to at least have a warning show up to notify operator something like "Supervisor Permission is Required to Proceed With Mass Replace"

COP Transfer Order - Skip transit location if order transit days = 0

Currently, when processing a COP Transfer Order, system transfers to Transit Location when order is invoiced, and then requires user to do Receiving Transfer Order Processing to transfer material from transit location to destination.

Propose that if Order Transit Days = 0, system transfers to destination location when order is invoiced - skipping the transit location and eliminating the need to process via Receiving Transfer Order Processing to complete the transfer.