468
So when looking at what warehouse picks there are, it makes sense to see the source number but you have to open the record to see it? - however the field is available on the Warehouse Picks Screen but does not pull in any of the data?
Any ideas how to solve this?
I agree with you on nearly every point. It is a very flexible system, which means it's never going to be a precise fit for anyone. The personalization feature makes it easy to customize views and the profile/role page customization is great.
BC is a huge step forward for us, much better than the old system we're coming from. The advantages and benefits are substantial, and I would recommend the product to anyone with an appropriate need.
That said, this is a nearly 3 decades old successful business with longstanding processes in place that work very well. We're profitable and growing, all thanks to the processes we already have in place. There is, of course, always room for improvement in any business. And yes, BC has helped us improve some processes.
Philosophically, I believe that systems like this are meant to keep track of what you are doing, not tell you how to do it.
My only point in reviving this old thread was about the Warehouse Pick list page in particular. I don't think they're meeting design intent with that page. We have a 3rd party handheld app that shows the source no. in the pick list. The data exists and can be displayed.
The answer I would give is that Business Central is a very flexible platform and functions like warehousing are scalable.
Depending on your requirements different elements and fields become relevant or not relevant.
In the SMB sector inventory picks are probably more prevalent than directed put-away and pick. Microsoft making all the fields appear or disappear depending on requirements sees them charging a lot more for the product when they make it very easy for you to do this configuration yourself. They take a punt on what they think is the most appropriate layout but it will only lay suit a small portion of customers.
As for the last comments regarding how expensive everything is. As somebody on partner side but previously an end user, I would say 70-80 of the development work undertaken is only undertaken because customers don’t actually listen or cannot envisage how they can adapt their processes to use the system they purchased.
They spend a fortune trying to make it look and function how their old system or their spreadsheets do. This is a failure to see the bigger picture. If you think consultants enjoy that and are counting the money, you’re mistaken. I consider stupid developments that deliver badly conceived functionality insisted upon by the customer to be a total waste of my time and their money.
100% with you on that MeatPopsicle - unfortunately the more i use Business Central you realise the way it is all set up.
- Core functioning product (you always have to pay on top to make it work for a business, does not really work out the box and it could)
- Opened up to small/medium businesses and it has not been adapted to their needs. Insane prices partners charge and a lot of it is just populating data or copying customisations from a previous project. They get away with this on enterprise projects, but it kills small/medium businesses trying to adopt the platform alongside the Microsoft suite.
- These adaptations come in the form of customisations via partners to make $£€. Leaving in the usability issues creates more business for the partner and reseller networks to try to prevent day-to-day businesses using the platform which kills off their setup.
Issues like this, is a performance/feature change, but they have no intention of making it better as they want you to pay a partner to do that.
We don't use Inventory Picks, we use Warehouse Picks.
I understand the database logic of header vs. detail.
I don't understand useless fields being visible by default. That's either bad design or failure to meet design intent. I'm calling it the latter, since, as you say, this functionality is present with Inventory Picks.
I would prefer the field be both visible and functional.
It's ridiculous, but I'm probably paying for a customization to make it so.
The purported answers in this thread are not answers. They're excuses. Nobody has explained why these fields that cannot be populated are visible by default on the WP page, because there is no rational explanation for that behavior.
Teddy actually gave the reasoning behind the Source No. in the header:
"The Source No on the Header is used for Inventory Picks (not Warehouse Picks)."
In a DPP Warehouse, you aren't using Inventory Picks, so in your instance this field would not be utilized.
I guess it depends on the size of your operation. We are picking dozens of sales orders and sometimes just as many production orders every day. We're using directed put & pick, so every order requires a pick. They are typically executed that same day, often within hours.
All of that is completely beside the point.
The Warehouse Pick page shows the Source Document and Source No. fields BY DEFAULT but they are neve populated and as far as I can tell they cannot be populated under any circumstance. That is either a design flaw - the fields should not be visible or even available on that page - or a failure to meet design intent - the fields are rightly visible on the page but not populating as intended. There is no reasonable design specification that requires a visible field that is never and can never be populated.
Sometimes it pays to change your thinking.
A warehouse picker does not need to know who an order is for.
Micro managing orders and who they are for is often a barrier to improving efficiency. Picks should be created only when needed and then executed on an asap basis.
If your pick list is full of lots of picks and you are hunting for the one you want, you are introducing inefficiency.
I know this is an old thread, but this is either a design flaw or a failure to deliver design intent. If the fields are available to display in the list, the data behind them should be visible when those fields are displayed.
If there was never any intent to populate those fields, they should not be available to display.
The list is useless without the source information. Users have to click through every pick until they find the one they're looking for, and that's just plain silly.
Where multiple sales or production orders are on a single pick, the system should display 'MULTI' or similar - or leave it blank.
In instances where a pick is limited to a single sales/prod. order, the source no. should absolutely be displayed.
Is there ANY instance where these fields are populated? If no, they should either be removed from the page or this bug fixed.
For Warehouse Picks, the Source No is on the lines, not header. The reason is because you can combine pick from multiple sources.
The Source No on the Header is used for Inventory Picks (not Warehouse Picks).
If you want to have the Source No on the Warehouse Picks, you need to do customization to grab the first Source No. from the line.
I think need modify (add extension if speak about Saas/Cloud) standard system (modify page).
#1
André Arnaud de Cal...
291,462
Super User 2024 Season 2
#2
Martin Dráb
230,551
Most Valuable Professional
#3
nmaenpaa
101,156
Share
Report
All responses (
Answers (
