Am Sonntag, 6. November 2011 schrieb Cédric Krier:
> On 06/11/11 18:26 +0100, Dr. Axel Braun wrote:
> > Am Sonntag, 6. November 2011 schrieb Cédric Krier:
> > > > > > > >> It doesn't sound correct: supply method available
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >what about 'in-house'?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Supply method: in-house sounds good.
> > > > > > > Maybe 'internal' also.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are really talkng about the product availability, dont you?
> > > > >
> > > > > No. It is about how to supply a sale line.
> > > >
> > > > ...and the availability drives this.
> > >
> > > No. It is choosen at the sale or by the default value defined on the
> > > product.
> >
> > In case you want a general distinction, e.g. for a material always
> > supplied by a third party order, that makes sense. For normal stock or
> > service products not, IMHO.
>
> I don't understand. If it is not "On Purchase", it is automaticly "On
> Stock" (current naming).
You may want to sell items that you never have on stock - the process is
called a third party order ('Streckengeschäft'). The customer orders with you,
you send a PO to the supplier, and the supplier sends the goods to the
customer, without touching your warehouse.
You send an invoice to the customer, and the customer pays you. You pay the
supplier.
For this process - maybe a certain material - you may want to put a
distinction on material level, so that a sales to a customer immediately
triggers the PO to the supplier.
If you have a stock item - see earlier in the conversation - you can either
deliver from stock, or, if you dont have enough stock, you have to put it on
hold as you first have to purchase it ( I assume this is what you mean with
'on purchase') - you have a backlog in that case, an out-of-stock situation.
So the status of the sales order line is driven from the material
availability.
Cheers/Ax
--
[email protected] mailing list
