Transfers in an HQ enviroment

Well, everyone is entitled to a vote, but my vote on this one would be No.

The receiving store should only care about what is showing up at their location - it doesn't make any difference what the sending store says that they sent. What if an item 'falls off the truck' in transit between stores? the issuing store should count what's leaving their store and the receiving store should count what arrives at theirs - checks & balances...

Ditto!

More over I feel that there should be more of a requistion process and soem workflow perhaps via Email to enable the system to pul a request then confirm in the transfer process.

Same as the guys though you can tighten the blot too much on this one.

Perhaps in Config there should be a few tickable option for tranfers.

Ivan

Screw e-mail, get the messaging system working between stores. The database is there, just not implemented in HQ between stores. Retail Realm has an add-on.

yeah here we go again "add-ons"

Wouldnt it be great after the customer who has spent alot of money on the system in the first place got a system that did the job without having to purchase these "add-ons"

I th> Screw e-mail, get the messaging system working between stores. The database

Glenn

What happens to the items that "Fell of the truck" > Well, everyone is entitled to a vote, but my vote on this one would be No. >

Here's my 2 cents...

Wouldn't it be great if the customer evaluated and determined before they bought a system if it fitted there needs istead of blaming the system after the purchased it. Whatever happened to taking responsibility ones own actions? Yes RMS has some flaws but think of it from a software companies perspective, how can they determine every single possible variation on how the system is going to be used, it is impossible. So what they do is try to appeal to the mass. And making the system somewhat open to the general public to be able to customize and build these addons for those few instances where the system is lacking makes RMS very robust.

Rob

Rob, heres my "2 cents" to your post

If you read my post carefully you will see that I am talking solely about the transfer functionality in RMS, I think you are insulting my intelligence a bit with your opening statement about evaluating software first and how companies cant think of every possible variation.

You said "Yes RMS has some flaws" - well here is where I think there is a flaw, and my post is in here becuase I am trying to make a difference for my customers and where I personally think RMS can be improved. Please dont make out that I am criticsing the whole piece of software, I would be working with the product if I thought it was a waste of time

Steve

"Rob" wrote:

There's a report at the HQ level that shows variance between issued and received. That's where it's detected and that's where any investigation or reconcilliation needs to start.

Steve, if you are offended by my post that is not my problem, I was playing devil's advocate in the sense that what you may think is a flaw someone else may think otherwise.

I still stand by my statement about a client evaluating software before buying, we as RMS Partners can only provide them with answers to questions given, it is then up to the client during the demo and evaluation phase (of course with our help) to ensure that the product fits there wants and needs. And if it turns out that the flaws you see in the Transfer area are also apparent and such a great hinderence to the client then they should not purchase the software. If they still decide to purchase the software then it is up to us to offer other solutions, i.e. addons if available.

In the end, you said in your previous post that you would describe in detail why you think these are flaws and I encourage you to do so, as I may even agree with you and even vote for you suggestion but until then I have to agree with Jeff and Glenn on there exlpainations.

Rob

"Steve" wrote: