Update of Inter-Store transfer orders

HI Jason, The first of all you have to enable the option in HQ with following: Go to File > Configuration and enable this

Automatically create inter-store receiving inventory order = check it Automatically create inter-store issue inventory order = check it. So when you make transfer out in Store A it and then run the HQ Sync could be 401 or 402 then the data of transfer out move from Store A to Store B and at the Store B it create transfer In Documents.

"Jas> I am at the end of my rope with transfers. I can't understand ho RMS can

That is not what I am talking about. I mean once the transfer is sent to the other store, changes made at either location are not reflected at the other one.

I know this subject has been discussed many times before, but the time is come for us to collectively find a workaround. I am willing to help, pay, contribute - whatever. I just need this FIXED!

HI Jason, as soon as I read your words of workaround there is good think hit on my mind. send me the email of your database names, at store and HQ and then I will write a detail specification set how we can perform the changes at both end.

We need to devel> That is not what I am talking about. I mean once the transfer is sent to the

Jason, forget it. Sorry for the bad news, but as they say: the truth hurts.

The 'workaround' you seek is this. Don't make any changes to placed orders.

Is this a major shortcoming? YES.

Does MS plan to fix it? I HOPE SO, BUT I HAVE MY DOUBTS.

As far as I can tell, Headquarters is an afterthought. The software was designed for a single-store environment then modified to accomodate multi-store customers.

If RMS were intended from day one as a multi-store platform, you wouldn't have to call HQ to get a phone number/mailing address changed for a customer (or any of a long list of 'HQ only' functions.

Of course, if RMS were *truly* multi-store, it'd cost about 5X as much...

I feel your pain. Tom

One more thing - more specific to your issue.

Have your warehouse guys fill the order but not add any items. If add'l items are sent, have the whse folks send a separate transfer out order with only the add'l items.

Tom

I do not accept your response. I will not forget it. There IS a solution. Obviously it CAN be done. It might not be easy. It might not be neat and tidy. It might even be expensive :)

The data is there. It is just in two seperate databases. It's just a matter of syncing it up on demand. Since both Store Ops databases are accessible from a single location, there is a way to do it (even without HQ knowing about it).

I have already successfully downloaded the data from the two databases into Excel and figured out how to "sync" the data in a somewhat automated way. The questions is how to get it back into the database...

At least now I can quickly identify the differences between the transfer orders. That was previously a major chore itself. But there is still the task of making the orders match at each location, which is still a very manual proposition.

That does not help the receiving store. The second transfer might match the physical transfer of goods in this case, but the original transfer is pretty worthless if the sending store could not fulfill the request fully.

In my business the requesting store does a transfer request. The sending store is likely to have about 50% of the line items requested, and even then they do not typically send the full quantity requested for each item.

I hate duplicated effort almost as much as wasted effort. I am getting a double whammy here.

The 'solution' would be for RMS to include transfer order updates in the regularly scheduled WS401. Regardless of where the transfer order originated, all updates would be sent to/from all stores. The 'trouble' with this scenario is that both stores could enter conflicting data between updates. What then?

Anything else will be a cumbersome PITA.

If you come up with a solution, I'd love to hear it.

Still feeling you pain - transfers are one of my biggest problem areas -

Tom

SO has the functionality to contact and "check stores" for inventory. The solution would be to have the store connect to HQ before and after a transfer is modified and prevent changes when changes are being made. The bottom line is that HQ should "own" the transfer order until both stores "agree" on the transfer. I realize that this would require an inherent change to RMS - not likely. So a workaround is the only option at this time.

At a minimum, you should be able to request that your changes are propagated to the other store. Rules could be established for conflicts. In my case, I always want store A to have precedence over store B.

At this point, I am thinking about abandoning HQ all together for transfers and developing an external solution that modifies the SO database inventories.

If my partner had told me that this was the way it would be, I would have never invested in HQ, and probably moved to something other than RMS. But I am stuck with this investment now, and I need to make it work.

Any other creative ideas out there before I embark on my journey to develop a solution?

Jason

Akber - I sent you a private email, but did not get a response. You still out there?

Jason

Did you ever find a workaround for this? I am having the same issue and it makes rms extremely cumbersome to work with if you have to create seperate transfer orders for items not on the original transfer out order.