Hi Dominique, Am Freitag, 12. September 2014, 17:16:28 schrieb Dominique Chabord: > > > Information on the client level can be something that is valid for all > > companies, like name of the product, size & weight, EAN-code, product > > hierarchy, indicators, e.g. for dangerous goods etc. > > I don't think you use the right word. > These elements are global, but have no reason to be at a client level.
SAP-Speech, sorry. Yes, some information is on global/database level, and some on company level. > > On plant or sales region / company level you may have sales unit of > > measurement, tax codes or tax rules, minimum order quantities etc. > > > > By this you have integration on many information, but separate values for > > companies where it is required > > Not sure I understand. Do you mean that managing several companies can > be complex ? or something else ? It definitely can, but thats not what it should say. My point is that you need to have different prices e.g. by company (and even within company). Prices are just ONE example. > > I would avoid EDI as much as I could. > > EDI is the only official approach to do it Between independent companies, between supplier etc. Yes. When you have several companies in a group, integration on a single system is higher and faster (e.g. intercompany-postings etc). Why do you think are integrated packages like SAP so successful? > Complicated, expensive and error-prone > > > unless you have tested it out completely. > > My perception is exactly the opposite. The standard is safe and > proven. If we follow it we cannot get it wrong. I have never seen 'the 'standard' . Even if you talk EDIFACT or a similar 'standard', you always have exceptions/extentions. > And requires additional EAI-software > > > resp EDI converter > > Any solution requires converter and EAI > > >> So clearly, this doesn't require at all to be on the same database. > > ?? I don't get this point. > > >> Moreover, if someone develop such feature, it will work for companies on > >> the same hosts but also across any network. So this will be a truly > >> generic solution. > > Do you mean EDI is a generic solution ? Yes, it works also if some > companies don't use Tryton. > > > You have a couple of sales companies, who do their sourcing via a central > > souring company or department, in order to take advantage from economies > > of > > scale. Physically they (the sales companies) may share the same warehouse, > > but sell for a different price. Example: small franchise chain with > > web-sales. all different legal units but from supply chain perspective > > with shared services. Quite a comon model nowadays. > > This is a typical example why EDI is useful and effective. Regarding > stock management, you cannot share a stock between several companies > in France. I guess the same in EU. Shared service is allowed if you > know to which company belongs any good in the warehouse. Dont mess up logistics and financial requirements. Best/Axel
