Yeah, we could split out a separate sales order for each SDQ without too much trouble. The problem is in re-assembling all of those sales orders into a single ASN and a single invoice per PO.
Travis Truax wrote: > Mike, > We use MAS200 here, and have the same problem. However we worked > around it like some of the other posts mentioned by parsing through the SDQ > and making separate orders. Luckily we don't have to handle them very often > with that hack. > The particular customer that sends the infrequent SDQ POs allows us > to invoice them separately, though. > You've got to love those 4-digit address code fields in MAS. GLNs > fit really well! ;) > > Travis- > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Rawlins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 10:37 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [EDI-L] To SDQ or not SDQ... > > > This is exactly the same situation I'm trying to handle with one of my > clients. They're a small supplier to several retail chains, and one of > them recently announced they were going to start sending multiple > ship-tos (via SDQ) on each PO. My client's order management system, > MAS90 creates one sales order per delivery location (at least in the way > that they use it). The SDQ would have caused us a *lot* of heartburn in > trying to re-assemble single invoices and ASNs per PO from multiple > sales orders. Fortunately for us, the buyer backed off from using the SDQ. > > The bottom line is that for many suppliers this really isn't a mapping > problem. It's an issue with the order management systems. > > Mike > > John Fiorino wrote: > >> Another thing to consider is whether your suppliers can in fact even >> handle >> an SDQ type order. Since you now send 1 store per PO, they more than >> likely >> create one customer order within their systems and then return one ASN and >> one invoice for that order back to you. If their systems can’t handle >> multiple ship-to’s within one order they’d continue to create multiple >> sales-orders per ship-to in the SDQ. I’m just guessing, but this would >> result in one invoice per SDQ referring to the same PO number you sent in >> the first place. >> >> Can your new host application handle multiple invoices for each SDQ order >> you initially sent? For that matter, how does your new merchandising >> system >> handle inbound invoices for these orders? ASN’s? >> >> Although ‘the customer is always right’, and you can impose your new >> standards on them and insist that they comply by your go-live date >> (resulting in many on this board making a living out of it…) I prefer >> taking >> the ‘KISS” approach. >> >> Since your suppliers already handle your current PO standard, keep it >> simple >> and create multiple 850’s with the store number appended to the PO# as >> others have suggested. This would have the least impact on your go-live >> date. One less thing to test. Implementing a new merchandising system is >> hell as it is (been there done that many,many times…). >> >> Just my 2 cents worth. >> >> John Fiorino >> CompuSys Solutions >> Systems Integration Specialist >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] <mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com> >> [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com>]On >> Behalf Of Jayne >> Gillette >> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 18:29 >> To: [email protected] <mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com> >> 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 >> >> -- >> No virus found in this outgoing message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.6/486 - Release Date: 10/19/2006 >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> >> >> > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting www.rawlinsecconsulting.com ... 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/
