I am in the process of trying to create a store level report by department, catagory, and item of the moneys received in total by both deposit on work orders and on direct sales that are not work orders. We require a 100% deposit (of a single tender type) on work orders. I then need to break this deposit down by department, catagory and item. Then I must add that to the same break down for direct sales. Thereby getting a total of all moneys received during a specified period for the store across all registers.
So basically I am trying to figure out the data structure and organization of the transaction/order data and how they are related.
While doing this I have found, in our existing data, 11 work orders from last year that were invoiced twice on seperate registers using the same single deposit as the tender. One of those 11 sales transactions appears to have occured at exactly the same time on two different registers. The others are all within minutes/seconds of each other. I have looked in the journal batches to verify this and journaled receipts were found in their respective batches.
How is this possible? My assumption (love that word!) is that a work order can only be filled once and that a deposit on a work order can also only be used once during the sales transaction tending process. Can multiple people be working on processing the work order at the same time? If so, shouldn't there be something in place to prevent this from happening?
Our situation is that work orders get filled in groups. Work orders X thru Y are "picked" and prepared for shipping at the same time. At that point it is reported back to the office that they have been picked and are ready to be invoiced. At that point two people on different registers start recall the work orders and generate the respective invoice. Is it possible that both people got "in sync" with each other while processing? Is it possible that the system allows for the commital of the invoice without "knowing" that someone else is also process the invoice at that time? Shouldn't the system check the current status of a workorder prior to the commital of the invioce?
Did we just stumble in to a big logic hole?
Any info would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Terry