AdminEdward M. Kwang - NETcellent System, Inc. (Admin, NETcellent Systems, Inc.)

My feedback

  1. 12 votes
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    28 comments  ·  Elliott Forum  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    We should probably consider adding volume information to the bin master level so we can determine how full a bin may be. The volume information including cubic feet, length, width, height? Also, a lot of time, the pallet size is important too. In many case, what's store at the bin is pallet, not the indivisual item. Not sure where to put that information.

    Someone suggested that the Freight Account should be removed from the Order Billing Screen and the invoice posting should always get the freight account from ship via code setup.

    Currently, the freight account is determined at the time of entering the Order Billing Screen. It default to the freight account in the ship via code. One Elliott user choose to access billing screen during regular order entry. But they don't know the ship via code yet at the time of order entry, so they use a generic ship via code, and result the billing screen use the generic ship via code freight account. Later on, the ship via code is changed before the order is shipped. But the freight account in order header stay the same.

    So it is suggested that Elliott should always determine the freight account base on Ship Via code on the order header upon invoice posting. If that is the case, then we should not even store freight account in order header file at all. We are evaluating whether we should remove freight account from order header file or not. Please comment and let us know your opinion.

    Regarding Sheryl Manz's comment on 6/6/17 4:40AM, we do intend to introduce 12 months accumulator fields for customer, vendors and some other master table. This will be similar to the 12 months accumulator in IMLOCHST (I/M Location History).

    Regarding Bob Goldberg's comment on 4/4/2017 12:02, we will ensure that we have the necessary database structure to support 6 lines x 60 characters for address. We are thinking using attribute to support it in the future. Therefore, we will expand the attribute reference field from 35 characters to 60 characters with V9. But we will not support this feature with the initial Elliott V9 release though.

    Regarding Aaron Keating's comment on 3/17/2017, yes, we can make this change. In addition, I suggest to add customer type to the order header as well. We can then optionally allow user to change customer type at the order header level base on Global Setup. This will allow different pricing for the customer base on the new customer type at the order.

    As for the starting source of sales, it is already in the order line item audit trail table. We agree that it make sense to put in the order line item, and then carry over the invoice line item, as well as CPHSTTRX table.

    Regarding Aaron Keating's comment on 2/16/2017, yes, you can continue to run Elliott V8.x in production, and V9 in a separate folder/database for testing purpose. Once testing is satisfactory, you can then do a final conversion and switch on V9. Unlike V7.5, you cannot run on V8 and V9 concurrently.

    There will be changes to VIEWS due to the database structure had been changed. One example is APOPNFIL table used to have two type of records - vouchers and checks. In V9, they are separated into two different tables.

    Regarding Shyeryl Manz's comment on 2/10/17, just as a FYI, we currently a more finite level attribute security through "Supervisory Relationship". With that, you can consider a more restrictive approach with Global Security flags and Attribute Code Shareable for Read, Change and Delete flags. See knowledge base article: http://support.elliott.com/knowledgebase/articles/870954-feature-enhanced-security-for-attributes for more detail.

    Regarding Avi Weissbard's comment on 1/31/2017:
    5. We will support unit cost and unit price up to 6 decimals. Since not all users want that many decimals, so we will introduce the following flags in company setup:
    Number of Decimals For Unit Price
    Number of Decimals For Unit Cost
    The default value are 4 which match Elliott V7/V8 design. The valid values can be from 2 - 6. We will introduce new AP to make the coding easier to support various number of decimals user choose to go with. At the database level, it is always 6 decimals. The flags here is only for the screen and report printing masking.

    Regarding Avi Weissbard's comment on 1/31/2017:
    1. Search by name - Elliott V9 will use case insensitive key, therefore, there's no need for the upper case search field and thus eliminated in V9.
    2. We support up to 10 reference fields in customer, vendors, items...etc. In the past, they are searchable as user definable index (5 additional key). In V9, we will extend the user definable index to all 10 reference fields.
    3. Noted and we will discuss internally.
    4. We currently plan to support unit price at 9,999,999.9999 in Elliott V9.
    5. Noted and we will discuss internally.
    6. Yes, we will support Lot number up to 18 digits.
    7. We will have better support for lot number in V9. In the initial Elliott V9 release, the lot number capability will not be as robust as serial number. We intend to make the V9 database capable supporting robust lot number feature like serial number. Those features may take time to develop like V9.1, V9.2...V10...etc. A good database schema is like a solid foundation. That is what we are trying to do with V9. We intend to build on this solid foundation for may robust features to come.

    There are users suggest that Elliott V9 need to support plus work order with scheduling date at the routing level. Currently, Elliott plus work order support start and due date at the work order header level. But some users produce items that may take 2 weeks to produce. They need the scheduling at the routing level which SFC do. Then they need to print production scheduling report and material pick ticket for the date which is base on routing scheduling date. Without this feature, they can't covert to plus work order.

  2. 2 votes
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Elliott Forum  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    If a user deletes an attribute through Util-Setup-> System File Maintenance-> Attribute Master File Maintenance, the application will mass delete all occurrences of the attribute for all files and all references. The new application will give the user the ability to selectively delete records without deleting the attribute definition.

  3. 1 vote
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Elliott Forum  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  4. 2 votes
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Elliott Forum  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Are you refer to non-stock items only? What about the phantom items and their blow through? Are you concern about that as well? We are thinking maybe we can introduce a global setup flag to determine this behavior. Please reply and let us know more details. If you can provide some concrete sample, that will help too.

  5. 1 vote
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Elliott Forum  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Are you referring to the CSV import, ASCII import...etc.

  6. 3 votes
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Elliott Forum  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  7. 1 vote
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Elliott Forum  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    We need to handle this on the report by report basis. So this is not a generic defer processing feature. Please provide the reports that you would run for month end, so we can evaluate if we can make those report defer processing month end friendly.

  8. 1 vote
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Elliott Forum  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  9. 2 votes
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  4 comments  ·  Elliott Forum  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    As for the archiving issue, we are working on allowing alphabetic invoice number. It is still 6 digits like now. But because alphabetic characters are allowed, it will greatly enhanced the number of invoice number that can be stored in the 6 digits space so you will probably never have a need to archive after. We plan to release this feature in Elliott 8.3 before the end of the year.

    It has no impact to InvoiceInquiry web services as it draw the data from invoice history database.

    Currently, we noticed some of our customers get duplicate invoice number assigned as the invoice is printed. Elliott posting routine will catch this and prevent the duplicate invoice from posted, so it is still safe. But the invoice is already printed and maybe sent to customer already. This cause operation difficulty. So our focus is to prevent assigning duplicate invoice number in order header, in the mean time, provide an auditing database of invoice printing activities.

  10. 3 votes
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    planned  ·  0 comments  ·  Elliott Forum  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  11. 3 votes
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    3 comments  ·  Elliott Forum  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    It will be difficult to support adding "Productive" operation once the production is started. We can have calculation integrity issue. But adding a "Setup" type of operation is doable. So rework can be done through adding new "setup" operation in between two operations.

    We could always void the printed work order, and allocated it, then go back to change the work order. Once change the plus work order, re-print it.

  12. 2 votes
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  0 comments  ·  Elliott Forum  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  13. 4 votes
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    planned  ·  0 comments  ·  Elliott Forum  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  14. 3 votes
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Elliott Forum  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    It is possible to use line item audit trail database to create some kind of revision history by date for order inquiry. We could provide a function key and when user choose, it will bring up a list of entry base on line item audit trail by date. We have to exclude the header record in CPLINAUD which is related to changing the shipping date on the order header. From there, user can drill down to the detail. Because the database of line item audit trail is different from PO revision history, so the presentation will be different. But we probably can make it somewhat similar and useful.

  15. 3 votes
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  3 comments  ·  Elliott Forum  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Print one invoice use the regular invoice printing routine and so it already support event. I think the issue is you can't tell whether the invoice was a duplicate invoice from print one invoice function.

    We have to be careful with several areas: (1) No new invoice number is assigned; (2) Customer file pick/invoice amount will not be updated; (3) credit checking....etc. should not take place; (4) no new invoice date should be assigned. As a matter of fact, no update should take place at all.

  16. 3 votes
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  1 comment  ·  Elliott Forum  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    We should implement this like PDF Post office but not using PDF at all. User can layout the email template by login as SUPERVISOR and make it enforce. The system manager need to be modified to support the variables so it will do a merge and present the final output per user's layout. This is a Jim's project.

  17. 1 vote
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Elliott Forum  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    We could add a global setup flag to treat non-stock item like a stock item in shipping verification, and by default this flag is not enabled so it does not affect other users.

  18. 4 votes
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Elliott Forum  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    We suspect this is not going to be an issue as we move toward the future. We had introduced phantom locking capability in customer and item file maintenance. So we will see how that reduce record locking and reevaluate this request.

  19. 3 votes
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    2 comments  ·  Elliott Forum  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    In Global Setup, ask user the folder name for each task of defer processing to store the non-email one. For example, user can specify CPINVPRT-No-Email as the folder name. Then during invoice printing, the PDF Post Office document that does not have the eContact will be sent to this folder (instead print a hard copy, which is not possible with defer processing.

    But we still need to change the CPINVPRT so it does not prompt for parameters in the printing screen.

    The main reason PDF PostOffice dos not allow to run in defer processing has to do with the requirement to check the select the printer tab. The printer tab is used when there's no eContact for a particular PDF PostOffice document, in that case, a hard copy is printed on the printer instead.

    Defer Processing, by design, does not allow printing to printer, and therefore is not compatible with the current PDF PostOffice design.

    An idea had been mentioned that we may print to the disk, instead of printer, when eContact is not found. We are evaluating if this is a viable method to move forward with future enhancement.

  20. 1 vote
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  1 comment  ·  Elliott Forum  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    To do this, we need to introduce a global setup flag to enable this feature (by default, not enable). This is necessary not to introduce un-expected changes to other users. If this flag is enabled, and the customer file "Transfer Days" = 0, then we can directly transfer the inventory to the target location without going through the transfer location. The posted invoice will be marked as "received". All ATP records will be adjusted accordingly.

← Previous 1 3

Feedback and Knowledge Base