Mohamed Shoman SUPPORT ENG

PO confirmation batch job enhancement, to keep the process running so that it does not stop completely if it encounters an error on one PO.

As per the current design, The transferring of "attachments" across the intercompany SO/PO orders is limited to notes only. we are looking forward to including the other types like file, images, and URL as this will enhance the data integrity across the legal entities.

We are looking for Calculating the Requested delivery date on the consignment replenishment orders based on lead time. In case of such high volume items, the users don't have in mind all lead times for all products, and moreover it forces them to manually calculate the requested receipt date, which is time-consuming.

Suggested feature: An option should be added to the quality association form to determine if an error message or just a warning message should be populated to the end-user in case the status of the referenced quality order is failed. So this simply plays the role of blocking document types likes packing slip or invoice. Current design: Although the quality order might be failed the packing slip could be posted with just a warning message stating the following “Posting Sales order: XX A quality order that is essential to the process is closed, it failed to meet the minimum requirements.” Business impact: A potential risk of selling damaged items.

Extend the current Cluster Putaway Feature to support the Position name. Rerence to LCS Issue 516152.

It's a common scenario that picking lists should be sorted with different scenarios based on warehouses or warehouses and locations and so on. Right now there is no sort option with the picking list report, instead, you have to sort the picking list step itself before printing the report it's not feasible for users to sort every picking list document posting before printing and the issue is it cannot be changed after posting. Compared to other standard reports, it's being possible to sort production picking list reports.

Issue: == As a result of the current design in the process where the engineering company is releasing items to other receiving companies through the release product structure wizard if the receiving site has not been specified so the releasing site value will be copied to the receiving site. however, in case of the site value doesn’t exist in the receiving company so the validation/accept process will be failed with the errors "Site XX does not exist." and "Check validation failed" Suggestions: == Implement a new logic to copy the receiving site in the module parameters or in the Product release policies. Workaround: == Specify a Template released product in the Engineering product category details assuming that this default item has default order settings (Inventory site) so this value will be also copied instead of the releasing site.

Business scenario: -The actual AP invoice of landed cost could be posted Multiple times, due to different situations like the vendor issued partial invoice. - Given the fact that the option Multiple cost invoices = Accept Challenges with the current design: -In the current design, while posting the AP invoice the entire estimated cost price will be reversed and then to post adjustment with the actual cost. This could cause inventory fluctuations especially when it comes to adjustments at month closing. Example: -Estimated voyage cost of $100 has been posted and then the vendor issues a partial invoice of $30. In that case, accruals/Inventory will be reduced by $70 however it’s expected to be reduced only by $30 unless the user mentions that this is a final invoice (Mark a close option) so the entire amount should be settled. Suggested design: -This should be similar to the close function of the packing slip and product receipt posting. Initially, with partial invoice posting, the actual amount and estimated cost should be updated. So probably estimated cost should be (Initial estimated cost – Settled cost) and actual cost refers to the AP amount posted. -And also like partial invoice scenarios of purchase order based on ordered quantity, not the product receipt matching.

Issue: As per the current design, The expiration date of the GS1 code is not captured if the item has a Shelf life period in days defined on the item level. For this certain case, there is no direct way to automate the expiration date scan unless by removing the Shelf life period in days defined on the item level. Expectations: Either supporting this scenario by adding a new option to overwrite the system calculated expiration date by the scanned one, or adding GS1 generic setup for the vendor batch information like the (Vendor batch date,Vendor expiry date,Vendor batch number and Country/region of Origin) also considering some default options "Yes, No" for the (Use as manufacturing date and Use as expiration date)