I expect you will find that the SDQ is the way to go. I don't really know the history of the SDQ, but in my opinion, if it wasn't grafted on to the 850 as an afterthought, it was poorly implemented. But since it's the accepted standard for this sort of thing - you should probably stick with it. Had everyone been doing it the other way for years, then it would be the better method. I personally like your other method, as it looks less convoluted. Unfortunately my edi system disagrees. Let's see ... that's not the first time that's happened. :)
Travis- -----Original Message----- From: Jayne Gillette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 5:29 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [EDI-L] To SDQ or not SDQ... Dear Group: Due to the upcoming implementation (next summer) of a new merchandising system, we are reviewing the current format of our 850s and 860s (as well as several other EDI documents) to determine where changes are needed. Under the current system, we issue purchase orders with a unique PO number for each ship-to location (i.e., 1 PO number = 1 ship-to location). In the new world, the same purchase order number could be used for multiple ship-to locations. We know we could change our 850 / 860 EDI format to utilize the SDQ format like this: BEG segment: PO #12345 LIN segment: Item #ABC, Total Quantity 4000 SDQ segment: Ship-to Location 1, quantity 2000; Ship-to Location 2, quantity 1500; Ship-to Location 3, quantity 500 ...but, we are hoping to minimize the impact to our EDI trading partners as much as possible, so as not to jeopardize the go-live date for the new merchandising system. Since we do not currently issue SDQ-format 850s and 860s, we are considering sending the documents in the same EDI format we send today, which for the same order described above would look like this: 850 TRANSACTION #1: ------------------------------------------------- BEG segment: PO #12345 N1 segment: Ship-to Location 1 LIN segment: Item #ABC, Quantity 2000 850 TRANSACTION #2: ------------------------------------------------- BEG segment: PO #12345 (same PO number as transaction #1) N1 segment: Ship-to Location 2 LIN segment: Item #ABC, Quantity 1500 850 TRANSACTION #3: ------------------------------------------------- BEG segment: PO #12345 (same PO number as transactions #1 and #2) N1 segment: Ship-to Location 3 LIN segment: Item #ABC, Quantity 500 The EDI format is the same as what we send today, but the difference is the same purchase order number could now appear in multiple 850s / 860s, for individual ship-to locations. We are being told we really can't consider doing this because manufacturers can't process "duplicate" PO numbers such as that described above. Based on your experience / knowledge, is it true that "duplicate" PO numbers like this will cause major problems in manufacturers' order entry / shipping / invoicing / etc. systems? As always, thanks for all your help and advice! Jayne ... Please use the following Message Identifiers as your subject prefix: <SALES>, <JOBS>, <LIST>, <TECH>, <MISC>, <EVENT>, <OFF-TOPIC> Job postings are welcome, but for job postings or requests for work: <JOBS> IS REQUIRED in the subject line as a prefix. Yahoo! Groups Links ... Please use the following Message Identifiers as your subject prefix: <SALES>, <JOBS>, <LIST>, <TECH>, <MISC>, <EVENT>, <OFF-TOPIC> Job postings are welcome, but for job postings or requests for work: <JOBS> IS REQUIRED in the subject line as a prefix. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EDI-L/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EDI-L/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
