I don't think Steven was saying it was not a problem for the EDI system, it took an hour to process, that's not good and could have affected time sensitive documents (not sure how his system processes). I will stand by my statement and agree with the others that just because it could be "fixed" in the EDI system, doesn't mean it should be. Everyone needs to take a step back in these situations and determine the best and most logical solution. Not the quick and dirty or fastest or easiest, as using those criteria comes back to bite you in the posterior, time and time again. I have seen you espouse this argument more than once, Michael, also I've heard your "partner" emphasis in the Trading Partner relationship.
I was surprised by your answer, but attributed it to a momentary lapse of reason or just a bad day. We all have them. It's not time for you to ride off just yet! Leah ________________________________ From: Michael Mattias/LS <[email protected]> To: EDI-L <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2011 12:04 PM Subject: Re: [EDI-L] Need your comments... >I thinks it's time for you to retire. That is the most idiotic thing you >ever said. Perhaps I should and it was, but before I go off into the sunset... This is a terrific example of, "Why I/T can't 'do EDI' alone and all affected user departments MUST be vested in the project." Maybe it was "not a problem" FOR THE I/T PEOPLE the ERP system was gummed up for twelve hours, but having actually sat at a sales desk , worked in an accounting office and spent time on the shipping dock, I can guarantee you it was a hassle for everyone else. Someone had to do something. Fortunately, someone did. Michael C. Mattias Tal Systems Inc. Racine WI [email protected] --- On Wed, 6/8/11, Michael Mattias/LS <mcmlserve@tals From: Michael Mattias/LS <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [EDI-L] Need your comments... To: "EDI-L" <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, June 8, 2011, 9:03 AM > To me this was an extremely rare event but now managment wants EDI to > check all files and not pass anyhting over to SAP if the file has more > than 500 PO's. > > This is a knee jerk reaction. I don't feel the need to either check the > count of BEG segments or EDI_DC segments and suspend files. > > Has this type of thing happened to anyone else? My thinking is that if we > must add this check then SAP should not only check files size but PO > dates. > (dupe check didn't work because these POs from 2008-2010 were on another > system and not brought over to SAP.) Over the past thirty+ years I've written a lot of 'reasonableness' edits for many different business systems. Are you sure you're just not jealous of your management for coming up with one such edit which never occurred to you? Michael C. Mattias Tal Systems Inc. Racine WI [email protected] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ ... 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: [email protected] [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/
