Sage 100

v4.5 BOM Production History - Just need to determine if Sage was/is/will forever be stupid or if I am just not giving them enough credit. There is a BOM production history Crystal report available but the client wants to be able to do an inquiry. The inquiry functionality seems to be lacking. When I drill down into transactions in inventory maintenance to the specific BOM transaction, I am unable to double click drill down to preview as one can do on invoices, etc. Is this another inconsistency on Sage's part? Under the inquiry menu, there is BOM inquiry but not transaction inquiry. Thoughts.

Sage has been very consistent - they translated each feature exactly the way it was in the old version...the person who added the batch feature to inventory transaction entry probably got fired for it.

Hey Jeff - try to explain to your customer how to find a lot/serial number inside of a make lot/serial item - fun times...very embarrassing. I complained multiple times about how cumbersome that is. .People laugh when you tell them how they have to do that!

You guys aren't helping........ One continues to wonder why the rest of the modules weren't brought up to BF since since for the most part, it was a straight recode......

I have several clients that use production entry process and in most cases I had to use Item Transaction History and filter out BR transactions for most production reporting. So far no real production history inquiry option. You can setup a view using IM Explore but its not going to allow you to see the true production history; especially if you have lot based finished goods, and you want to drill in and see what components and associated lots were utilized to produce the finished goods. I am forced so far to have these companies run a custom crystal report which prompts them for parent item, lot, and date range - and allows export to excel (even with sub reports this takes a while to generate).

What I am looking for is a panel that has the BOM production entry number that I can use as a script field. I have a poor man's version of ACOM/Alltec document management. User scans the document, clicks a button on a MAS panel (e.g. AP invoice entry), the script relocates the scanned document to a specified folder and renames it based on selected fields from the AP invoice entry panel. To retrieve the scanned image, user drills down into AP history inquiry. Based on the vendor and invoice number on the panel, a second script displays the image. Works very well for clients that don't need a full blown document managment system. Problem with BOM production entry, there is not inquiry screen that one can open to pull the BOM transaction number. The transaction displays in invoice transaction inquiry, but I am unable to get to the number. Sage myopia strikes again.

With the SQL version could you create a view using BM transaction history? Could an MD create a view for this in non-SQL?

I suppose........ with enough money which the client who copes with the crystal report isn't going to spend. There is only so much a mere reseller can do thinking outside the box. At some point, SAGE should step to the plate with their improvements. Time to retire!

The only ""improvements"" that MAS or Accpac are going to see from now on are integrations with other connected services Sage can monetize.

Create an enhancement request and we will all go vote for it!

@PhilMcIntosh I agree 1000%. But it is Friday and had to get my sarcastic jab in on the Dark Lord!

Honestly, @roberta I would if I thought that would do any good. But what is Sage's track record with the idea web site? 1,204 ideas submitted, 4 planned and 35 completed. If you drill into the 35 completed, the VAST majority are enhancements that have been incorporated into the base code (the idea was planted by a Sage employee). The idea site is doing more to frustrate end users than to make them happy.

I wouldn't think a view would be that expensive to create. DSD could chime in...

Jeff - I completely understand. I had a situation awhile ago that I thought was a defect but had to be submitted as an enhancement because it had been that way since 4.10 but worked correctly in 4.05. I almost lost a good friend at Sage over it.