on
RE:
Desperately needed.
RE:
This change could be a great benefit for information clarity.
RE:
Hi Kitty GeigerThank you for your response. However, I believe there may have been a misunderstanding regarding the requirement.I am looking to change the start date of the deferral, not the billing end date.Please review the scenario carefully:The billing schedule start date is 13th January 2024.I have enabled Rule-15 from the deferral parameters.Based on this rule, the deferral start date should be 1st January 2024, not 13th January 2024.When I attempt to manually set the deferral start date to 1st January 2024 on the billing schedule deferral form, I receive the following error:“Deferral start date should be greater than or equal to billing start date.”Please advise on how to handle this situation so that the deferral can start on 1st January 2024 as per the rule.
RE:
Honestly. I think it would be better to just modernize and speed up the search. Please just do your own UX experience. try with 100 or more templates to find what you need. you'll see what needs to be updated. All these feature requests come down to just updating the search and insert of templates for speed and ease of use when there are many with various naming conventions.... thanks for trying it out to see if you agree MS.
RE:
Agree. Standard fields like external document number, posting date, document date, due date, etc. should be available on all sales and purchase reports.
RE:
YES PLEASE! External Document Number (vendor's invoice/credit number) should be available on any report related to vendor transactions like Vendor Pre-Payment report noted, Purchase Invoice-Test, Purchase Invoice (same fore credit memos), etc. Reports should also have document date, due date and posting date all available like on the Aged Accounts Payable report, not just 1 or the other based on aging date selected. Standard fields should all be available on the reports. Shouldn't need development for the standard fields to be available on the reports. Users request these type of fields all the time.
RE:
At this time, we have reached out to three Peer Firms using HSO/D365 and note that our peers would like to see this functionality enabled as well. This is critical to our processes.
RE:
We've talked with several other professional services firm and each identified this as a major pain point.
RE:
You should consider looking at binary Streams ASM module. It has expanded features for BOM
RE:
The basic situation is this:Goods arrive from POs/TOs to fulfill open demand for a TO/SOInstead of a new LP for each item, the cross-docking work is consolidated to an existing pallet LP. In the TO example, it greatly simplifies receiving at the destination because the worker only needs to scan the single pallet LP, not an LP for every different that was cross docked. One enhancement that I would add to the existing idea, if it were taken up, would be to also enable the Confirm and Transfer Feature to support for LP Consolidation. My suggestion would close the loop on instances where you successfully cross docked to an existing pallet in staging, but for any number of reasons you are unable load the pallet onto the truck. Confirm and transfer should spin the In process work off to a new load; however, this is not supported today.