143 results found

1. Prevent Invalid Serial Number from Receiving to Elliott

   Sometime either the manufacture bar code or our bar code scanner is not perfect. As a result, we received invalid serial number to our inventory which we do not know until when we try to sell it.

   I like to propose a logic to filtering out these invalid serial number at time of PO receiving. For example, we can define the valid range of serial number as 0 - 9, A-B, or maybe some special symbol like "-" or ".". If the serial number contains characters other that these symbol, we will reject it at time of PO receiving. This behavior should be enabled through the global setup of serial number control. We should allow user to press a function key to allow scanning of serial number with certain special symbol that's not allowed per global setup.

   In addition, sometime the invalid scanning of the serial number result in one digit short. Therefore, we should have a global setup flag to enable the following feature: use the first serial number in the list of the receiving serial number as the standard length. If the 2nd serial number and after does not match the same length, then system will reject the serial number. If the first serial number is a wrong scan, user can press ESCAPE key to start over again.

   This change is only applicable to PO Receiving, including PO Warehouse Receiving or Legacy Receiving. It is not necessary for other areas like shipping verification because a wrong scan there simply result in failure to match existing serial number in inventory. The remedy is simply to scan again.

   Sometime either the manufacture bar code or our bar code scanner is not perfect. As a result, we received invalid serial number to our inventory which we do not know until when we try to sell it.

   I like to propose a logic to filtering out these invalid serial number at time of PO receiving. For example, we can define the valid range of serial number as 0 - 9, A-B, or maybe some special symbol like "-" or ".". If the serial number contains characters other that these symbol, we will reject it at time of PO receiving. This… more

   3 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   2 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   completed  ·  AdminEdward M. Kwang - NETcellent System, Inc. (CEO / Founder, NETcellent Systems, Inc.) responded

   This project is completed and will be in the next Elliott revision.

2. Support GTIN base on two different UPC codes

   GTIN (Global Trading Item Number) is a 14 digits UPC code with the package code as the first digits + 13 digits UPC code. For 12 digits UPC code, you will just add a leading zero to make it 13 digits. The package code will represent the number of inner box in a case. Typically, the inner box will be encoded with a UPC code (12 or 13 digits), and the outside box will be encoded with a GTIN (14 digits) base on the same UPC code.

   But we have situation that our vendor does not implement GTIN correctly. Instead of using the same UPC code base on the inner box to create the GTIN on the outer case, they choose to implement with two different UPC codes for the inner box and outer case. That is to say, they treat the inner box and outer case as two different product. Then later on, they add the GTIN base on the outer case UPC code. I know this is not the right way to implement GTIN. However, our manufacturing is implementing their bar code this way. Is there anyway we can support both two different UPC codes for the same item with different packaging size? Can we support GTIN base on the 2nd UPC code, instead of base on the inner box UPC code?

   Attached image is an example of how our vendor is implementing the GTIN. The label on the top is on the outer case. Then label on the bottom is on the inner box. As you can see, the inner box has a UPC code of 047700169804. Instead of creating GTIN base on this UPC code, they decided to assign a different UPC code to the outer case as 047700169811. Then they create the GTIN base on the UPC code on the outer case as 10047700169818.

   At this moment, Elliott insist that since the UPC code for this item is 047700169804, so the GTIN must be derived from that UPC code and thus the GTIN will be something like 10047700169801. Can we do something about this? Ideally, Elliott should recognize both the 2nd UPC code on the outer case, as well as the GTIN base on the 2nd UPC code on the case. This way, it doesn't matter which bar code our users scan on the outer case, it will all work correctly.

   GTIN (Global Trading Item Number) is a 14 digits UPC code with the package code as the first digits + 13 digits UPC code. For 12 digits UPC code, you will just add a leading zero to make it 13 digits. The package code will represent the number of inner box in a case. Typically, the inner box will be encoded with a UPC code (12 or 13 digits), and the outside box will be encoded with a GTIN (14 digits) base on the same UPC code.

   But we have situation that our vendor does not implement GTIN correctly. Instead… more

   •  

   3 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   0 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   completed  ·  AdminEdward M. Kwang - NETcellent System, Inc. (CEO / Founder, NETcellent Systems, Inc.) responded

   This project is complete and will be in the next Elliott revision.

3. Do not allow Serialized Items to be received without serial numbers present

   We have had the situation occur where bad data allowed a serialized item to be received without serial numbers being present. We do not know what caused the bad warehouse receiving data. Globally, a check should be put in place to stop the receiving of a serialized item if there are no, or not enough, serial numbers associated with the receiving.

   3 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   0 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   completed  ·  AdminEdward M. Kwang - NETcellent System, Inc. (CEO / Founder, NETcellent Systems, Inc.) responded

   We had changed the warehouse receiving edit list and posting to perform integrity check to ensure the total number of serial number match the quantity to be received. The changes will be available in the next Elliott revision update.

4. Restricted option to prevent selling below minimum price setting

   We appreciate the warning when selling below the minimum selling price but there should be an option in the Global set up to lock this option in or still allow sellers to continue after they are warned. I understand its an internal management function but it would really save us time and money in the long run, it would be a valuable function for Elliott and something that we need. Please

   3 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   0 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   completed  ·  AdminEdward M. Kwang - NETcellent System, Inc. (CEO / Founder, NETcellent Systems, Inc.) responded

   This feature will be available in the next Elliott release. See http://support.elliott.com/knowledgebase/articles/1843255-feature-add-prevent-entry-for-unit-price-when-be for more information about this feature.

5. Support Lot Number for COP Transfer Order

   Currently, the COP Transfer Order support regular item and serialized item. But it does not support Lot Number.

   3 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   1 comment  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   completed  ·  AdminEdward M. Kwang - NETcellent System, Inc. (CEO / Founder, NETcellent Systems, Inc.) responded

   This project was completed and released in Elliott 7.56.308/8.06.308 release.

6. Support Paid Invoices on Expanded Aging Report

   On A/R -> Reports -> Aging Reports -> Expanded, it currently does not support printing items that's fully paid. On the other hand, in the regular aging report, it supports the following prompt:

   9. Show Open Items Only ?
   

   Can this prompt be added to the Expanded Aging Report?

   •  

   3 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   0 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   completed  ·  AdminEdward M. Kwang - NETcellent System, Inc. (CEO / Founder, NETcellent Systems, Inc.) responded

   This feature is completed. It did not make it to the up coming 7.56.706 release. Instead, it is scheduled to be released in early August. See the following knowledge base article:
   http://support.elliott.com/knowledgebase/articles/919872-feature-a-r-expanded-aging-report-add-show-op

7. On Export Processor default the "Include Field Titles" to be checked.
   3 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   0 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   completed  ·  AdminEdward M. Kwang - NETcellent System, Inc. (CEO / Founder, NETcellent Systems, Inc.) responded

   This change is completed in Elliott V8 and will be in the next release.

8. Add ability to Open an Order in Order Entry from the Open Orders Inquiry Special Function Screen

   When viewing orders in the Open Orders Inquiry window accessed by hitting Alt-O or clicking under the Special Functions button, it would be great to have the ability to right click on an order and open it directly in Order Entry. Right now, you have to find your Order Entry window and then key in the information to open it for editing.

   3 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   0 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   completed  ·  AdminEdward M. Kwang - NETcellent System, Inc. (CEO / Founder, NETcellent Systems, Inc.) responded

   This feature had been implemented with Elliott V8.2.

9. Create Order Release Log File

   In COP -> Processing -> Release Held Order, we often have issue on who release the order and what was the original reason why the order was put on hold in the first place. Can we have an audit trail for whenever an order is released? Ideally, this released order audit trail should contains, date time, order and customer information. Most importantly, it should contains the person who released it and what was the original credit hold reasons.

   3 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   1 comment  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   completed  ·  AdminEdward M. Kwang - NETcellent System, Inc. (CEO / Founder, NETcellent Systems, Inc.) responded

   This project is completed and will be in the next release. There’s a global setup flag to turn on this feature. See the following article for detail: http://support.elliott.com/knowledgebase/articles/833913-feature-order-release-log-file

10. Item Last Received Date to Include BOMP Production Activity

    Currently, the item last received date only includes activity from PO Receiving. Can we include BOMP production activity as well?

    For manufacturing item, we do not purchase so there will be no last received date based on the current logic.

    3 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    completed  ·  AdminEdward M. Kwang - NETcellent System, Inc. (CEO / Founder, NETcellent Systems, Inc.) responded

    This change is done and will be in the next Elliott update.

11. I Suggest Adding Item Description 2 to ATP (Available to Promise) by Item Report If Space Is Available

    Currently Item Description 2 is not on the ATP by Item Report. I suggest adding it to that report if space is available.

    •  

    3 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    completed  ·  AdminEdward M. Kwang - NETcellent System, Inc. (CEO / Founder, NETcellent Systems, Inc.) responded

    This change is done and will probably be released in early July. See following knowledge base article for more details:

    http://support.elliott.com/knowledgebase/articles/915525-change-available-to-promise-by-item-report-add

12. Support HTML Version of Shipment Acknowledgement Email

    The current Shipment Acknowledgement Email is a text version. Since in Elliott 8.6, it already supports the HTML version of the order acknowledgement, it is suggested that we should also support the HTML version of Shipment Acknowledgement Email.

    2 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    completed  ·  AdminEdward M. Kwang - NETcellent System, Inc. (CEO / Founder, NETcellent Systems, Inc.) responded

    This feature is released in Elliott 8.6.

13. Populate Order Freight Account Even if Freight Amount Is Zero

    In Order Entry billing screen, if the freight amount is zero, then the order freight account is blank by default. In some situation, external application like Starship (a third pparty shipping manifest system) can write freight amount back to Elliott order header field. It has no logic to update the order freight account.

    As a result, when you bring up order billing screen, you can see there's a freight amount, but there's no freight account associate with it which look odd. However, this is more an aesthetic issue because during COP Sales Journal for posting the invoice, system will see the freight account is blank, then system will find the proper freight account and use that for posting. So this is not an error condition.

    So it is suggested that during order entry, even if the order freight amount is zero, Elliott will still populate the order freight account anyway to prevent the aesthetic issue when Starship perform freight back to Elliott order freight amount field.

    In Order Entry billing screen, if the freight amount is zero, then the order freight account is blank by default. In some situation, external application like Starship (a third pparty shipping manifest system) can write freight amount back to Elliott order header field. It has no logic to update the order freight account.

    As a result, when you bring up order billing screen, you can see there's a freight amount, but there's no freight account associate with it which look odd. However, this is more an aesthetic issue because during COP Sales Journal for posting the invoice, system will see… more

    2 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    completed  ·  AdminEdward M. Kwang - NETcellent System, Inc. (CEO / Founder, NETcellent Systems, Inc.) responded

    This change is done and will be in the next Elliott release.

14. Give User Warning Message For Void Check with Multiple Checks

    When user try to void check(s), in many case, user has typo error at check number range (Starting Check No / Ending Check No) where they have to restore data to correct.

    Suggest to pop-up warning message if check range more than one check then system shows number of checks will be voided. User should confirm to answer "Yes". Default value it "No".

    •  

    2 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    completed  ·  1 comment  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →

15. Print Order Acknowledgement Eliminate Address Information

    When Printing Order Acknowledgement (Not Laser), user is prompted to enter Starting and Ending Order (OK), Starting and Ending Date (OK) and additional 4 lines of Correspondence and 1 line of Phone # that to my opinion are not necessary. I suggest to eliminate these lines or to add a global setup that will do it. I would leave the Order Type and consider to add "Print Duplicate?" question.

    •  

    2 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    completed  ·  AdminEdward M. Kwang - NETcellent System, Inc. (CEO / Founder, NETcellent Systems, Inc.) responded

    See KB article for detail: http://support.elliott.com/knowledgebase/articles/1948072-feature-prompt-addr-phone-in-order-ack-and-ema

16. Stop Multiple Users From Running Sales Order Import at the same time

    If multiple users run sales order import at the same time as another user or a scheduled deferred processing job they will often lock up one another or the deferred processing job will lock and need to be reset.

    There should be a way to avoid the lockups.

    Straight from the man himself:

    I think there’s a few areas we can look into:
    (1) We need to have a mechanism for the defer processing not to lock up and just skip the job with printing something like “Sales Order Import Skipped Due to CPIMPHDR work file is in used by other users” on the report.

    (2) We need to check when sales order import close the work files. We probably should close the work files in the beginning of the closing-procedure paragraph, before closing the printers. I said this because it seems USER is hugging this CPIMPHDR file for a long time. Probably he is just looking at the import result on the screen. If we close CPIMP*.BTR files before displaying the report on the screen, then this issue will less likely to happen.

    If multiple users run sales order import at the same time as another user or a scheduled deferred processing job they will often lock up one another or the deferred processing job will lock and need to be reset.

    There should be a way to avoid the lockups.

    Straight from the man himself:

    I think there’s a few areas we can look into:
    (1) We need to have a mechanism for the defer processing not to lock up and just skip the job with printing something like “Sales Order Import Skipped Due to CPIMPHDR work file is in used by… more

    2 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    completed  ·  AdminEdward M. Kwang - NETcellent System, Inc. (CEO / Founder, NETcellent Systems, Inc.) responded

    The change for (1) was completed. The new logic is that if there are two users (including defer processing) trying to perform sales order import at the same time, the 2nd user will get proper message without file accessing error and thus stop the defer processing.

17. Stock status Inquiry - Default Location

    Stock status Inquiry - Default Location

    Since there is no current setting for setting the default location in stock
    status inquiry would it be possible for it to remember the users last choice? This would prevent constant changing. This is important for
    multi-bin setups.

    2 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    completed  ·  AdminEdward M. Kwang - NETcellent System, Inc. (CEO / Founder, NETcellent Systems, Inc.) responded

    See KB article for detail: http://support.elliott.com/knowledgebase/articles/1948048-feature-stock-status-inquiry-store-location-in-r

18. Removing Line Item With Restricted Attribute On It

    We have never been able to remove a line item off of an order in Order Entry if there's a restricted attribute on that item. For instance, let's say there is an existing order and a restricted attribute has been added to a certain product line, etc. that prevents that customer from ordering it. The order will get thrown on hold at the time of a picking ticket. If we go into that order in Order Entry to delete it, it won't allow us into that line item. The only way to remove it is to take the restricted attribute off of the item or customer, remove the item(s), and then remember to put the attribute back on. It would be nice to be able to remove that line item without going through multiple steps.

    We have never been able to remove a line item off of an order in Order Entry if there's a restricted attribute on that item. For instance, let's say there is an existing order and a restricted attribute has been added to a certain product line, etc. that prevents that customer from ordering it. The order will get thrown on hold at the time of a picking ticket. If we go into that order in Order Entry to delete it, it won't allow us into that line item. The only way to remove it is to take the restricted attribute… more

    2 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    completed  ·  AdminEdward M. Kwang - NETcellent System, Inc. (CEO / Founder, NETcellent Systems, Inc.) responded

    This change has been completed and will be available in the next Elliott release.

19. Create an Event to Print Duplicate Invoice

    We have the event to Print invoice. There is no event to Print Duplicate Invoice which is a different program and the recommended method when using Post Office. I think we should have the Event for Print Duplicate Invoice as well.

    2 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    completed  ·  AdminEdward M. Kwang - NETcellent System, Inc. (CEO / Founder, NETcellent Systems, Inc.) responded

    This change has been completed. It will available in the next Elliott general release.

20. Date of Last Manufacture listed on Costed Bill of Material Report

    It would be helpful if the Costed Bill of Material Report for a manufactured, stocked item included the date last manufactured.

    2 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    completed  ·  AdminEdward M. Kwang - NETcellent System, Inc. (CEO / Founder, NETcellent Systems, Inc.) responded

    This change was completed on 3/14/19 and will be available in the next Elliott general release after this date. See http://support.elliott.com/knowledgebase/articles/1904896-feature-added-csv-file-creation-to-print-costed for more information.