Customer ID Policies

Basically, what we do is use the first two significant letters for sorting
(works well) then a sequential number for example RA1264. We've had almost
no issues, just a bit of training that "THE" does not costitute SIGNIFICANT
letters.

Shirley Graver
(End User)
Sys Admin
Rubber associates Inc.
Cleveland/Akron



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
We are having some "discussion" about customer IDs which is getting a little
deep (bordering on religion, so to speak). We converted from Classic where
ID's were numeric and very static. Once set they could not be changed. Way
back before I was on the scene it was decided to "number" them in the same
sequence as their names sorted. So Customer Number sorted reports were
roughly alphabetical. Over time this was blown out of the water by mergers
and name changes but Classic had good name sorting on reports so it didn't
matter too greatly.

Vantage is a lot nicer with the IDs and allows them to be changed while
retaining links via the "hidden" customer number. But Vantage also has very
poor reporting by name, for instance in 'Aged Recievables'. This makes it
very difficult to find a particular customer unless you have memorized the
IDs or had a special report written. Changing IDs to keep up with name
changes is a maintenance nightmare both in the system and chasing all the
"paper" records. We get at least one per week out of about 600 "buying"
customers. Here is where "religion" comes in. In all my years
administering databases I have insisted (where possible) on non-significance
in IDs. Start at 1 or A or whatever and assign them sequentially with no
built in meaning (like being name sorted). This is a hard sell to
management and users who don't understand the reasons for trading usability
against on-going maintenance costs.

Before I climb up to the pulpit to start preaching to my users I was
wondering how others handle this. Do you use significance in Customer IDs?
If so how do you manage changes? Any partially alpha IDs? Have you had to
write dozens or hundreds of reports sorted on name? Have you been able to
lower reliance on reports and force people to "go on-line" for info? If so
how? Any ideas or suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks,
-Todd Caughey
Harvey Vogel Mfg. Co.






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Todd:

I, too, was in a place that converted from Classic. We chose to have
significance in our ID codes, both Customer and Vendor. I have never looked
back...Companies change names so often (witness DCD, Dataworks, Epicor)
anymore, I feel strongly that if significance in ID codes helps the users
(and in the case of Vantage, it does-mainly because there are so many places
where all you see is the code), then that's the way I want it.

Our ID s are Alpha Numeric, so we can tell at a glance "who" we have and we
haven't had any problems with reports by using significant codes. I do have
a rule that only one person can change a customer ID, and only one person
can change a vendor ID and I chose that person.

Also, it has been of great help on the customer side because I have a couple
of bright folks in customer service and they do their own filters on RB
reports.

Just my thoughts, and I've implemented at two sites now.

Lydia




-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Caughey [mailto:caugheyt@...]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 12:09 PM
To: 'vantage@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: [Vantage] Customer ID Policies

We are having some "discussion" about customer IDs which is getting a little
deep (bordering on religion, so to speak). We converted from Classic where
ID's were numeric and very static. Once set they could not be changed. Way
back before I was on the scene it was decided to "number" them in the same
sequence as their names sorted. So Customer Number sorted reports were
roughly alphabetical. Over time this was blown out of the water by mergers
and name changes but Classic had good name sorting on reports so it didn't
matter too greatly.

Vantage is a lot nicer with the IDs and allows them to be changed while
retaining links via the "hidden" customer number. But Vantage also has very
poor reporting by name, for instance in 'Aged Recievables'. This makes it
very difficult to find a particular customer unless you have memorized the
IDs or had a special report written. Changing IDs to keep up with name
changes is a maintenance nightmare both in the system and chasing all the
"paper" records. We get at least one per week out of about 600 "buying"
customers. Here is where "religion" comes in. In all my years
administering databases I have insisted (where possible) on non-significance
in IDs. Start at 1 or A or whatever and assign them sequentially with no
built in meaning (like being name sorted). This is a hard sell to
management and users who don't understand the reasons for trading usability
against on-going maintenance costs.

Before I climb up to the pulpit to start preaching to my users I was
wondering how others handle this. Do you use significance in Customer IDs?
If so how do you manage changes? Any partially alpha IDs? Have you had to
write dozens or hundreds of reports sorted on name? Have you been able to
lower reliance on reports and force people to "go on-line" for info? If so
how? Any ideas or suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks,
-Todd Caughey
Harvey Vogel Mfg. Co.






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Todd,

I agree with your premise.

Back in the 60's IBM did extensive studies between 'Meaningful' vs random
part numbering schemes. They compared a straight 6 or 9 digit item number
Vs meaningful item numbers. Note that 'Meaningful' item numbers frequently
went to 18-30 characters in overall length.

What they found was:

* The number of errors when keypunching or entering a straight numeric item
number were virtually ZERO compared with long part numbering schemes.
* That over a 20 year lifetime the amount of time spent entering long part
numbers was HUGE compared to short numeric item numbers.
* That what is "Meaningful" today is frequently gibberish 20 years from
now. ( The last company I worked for used a 24 char part number in a format
like xx-xxx-xxxxx-x-x-xxxx-xx --- no one alive could remember exactly what
the logic was .... )
* That a part 'number' should be just that .... use description fields for
'describing' a part. That way if you want to change a description you can
without having to try and mass change item numbers throughout your system.

It is amazing how seductive it is to try and make item numbers 'meaningful'.
Over the last 20 years, in 4 companies, I have yet to see a meaningful item
number survive the test of time. Every time we got a new manager takes over
they seem to have their own "System" they want to use.

If I had a vote in Vantage design I would request that ALL tables be setup
with an internal 9 digit number for the record key with the "part-number",
"vendor-number", "customer-number", and related descriptions setup as
reference fields only. AKA the Customer table in Vantage. That way if you
can change the part-number field every 90 days to something new and 'more'
meaningful without being permanently locked in to one format that someone 15
years ago thought was cute.

It's the old KISS theory ....

Todd Anderson

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Caughey [mailto:caugheyt@...]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 2:09 PM
To: 'vantage@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: [Vantage] Customer ID Policies


We are having some "discussion" about customer IDs which is getting a little
deep (bordering on religion, so to speak). We converted from Classic where
ID's were numeric and very static. Once set they could not be changed. Way
back before I was on the scene it was decided to "number" them in the same
sequence as their names sorted. So Customer Number sorted reports were
roughly alphabetical. Over time this was blown out of the water by mergers
and name changes but Classic had good name sorting on reports so it didn't
matter too greatly.

Vantage is a lot nicer with the IDs and allows them to be changed while
retaining links via the "hidden" customer number. But Vantage also has very
poor reporting by name, for instance in 'Aged Recievables'. This makes it
very difficult to find a particular customer unless you have memorized the
IDs or had a special report written. Changing IDs to keep up with name
changes is a maintenance nightmare both in the system and chasing all the
"paper" records. We get at least one per week out of about 600 "buying"
customers. Here is where "religion" comes in. In all my years
administering databases I have insisted (where possible) on non-significance
in IDs. Start at 1 or A or whatever and assign them sequentially with no
built in meaning (like being name sorted). This is a hard sell to
management and users who don't understand the reasons for trading usability
against on-going maintenance costs.

Before I climb up to the pulpit to start preaching to my users I was
wondering how others handle this. Do you use significance in Customer IDs?
If so how do you manage changes? Any partially alpha IDs? Have you had to
write dozens or hundreds of reports sorted on name? Have you been able to
lower reliance on reports and force people to "go on-line" for info? If so
how? Any ideas or suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks,
-Todd Caughey
Harvey Vogel Mfg. Co.






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=162801.1342103.2934627/D=egroupmail/S=1700007183:N/A=
599088/*http://www.knowledgestorm.com/jump_white.html?c=Yahoo&n=eLert_Comput
ersInternet_Software_WhiteGridTime&t=ad> Click Here to Find Software Faster
Click Here to Find Software Faster

<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=162801.1342103.2934627/D=egroupmail/S=1700
007183:N/A=599088/rand=532185650>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
I agree 100% with Todd. Too many people try to use really intelligent
numbers. I have one client that uses 20 + digits and includes combinations
of letters, numbers, symbols, dots, dashes, slashes, etc. My years of
experience is that it is much quicker whenever possible to try and design
part numbers using the number keys.

Sit down and do data entry. Smart part numbers take too long to enter, too
many errors, etc.

Keith E. Taylor
Vice President
LBSi
Business Systems Consultants (Progress based ERP packages)
216/476-1416 ext 26
keith@...

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Anderson [mailto:tanderson@...]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 5:05 PM
To: 'vantage@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Customer ID Policies

Todd,

I agree with your premise.

Back in the 60's IBM did extensive studies between 'Meaningful' vs random
part numbering schemes. They compared a straight 6 or 9 digit item number
Vs meaningful item numbers. Note that 'Meaningful' item numbers frequently
went to 18-30 characters in overall length.

What they found was:

* The number of errors when keypunching or entering a straight numeric item
number were virtually ZERO compared with long part numbering schemes.
* That over a 20 year lifetime the amount of time spent entering long part
numbers was HUGE compared to short numeric item numbers.
* That what is "Meaningful" today is frequently gibberish 20 years from
now. ( The last company I worked for used a 24 char part number in a format
like xx-xxx-xxxxx-x-x-xxxx-xx --- no one alive could remember exactly what
the logic was .... )
* That a part 'number' should be just that .... use description fields for
'describing' a part. That way if you want to change a description you can
without having to try and mass change item numbers throughout your system.

It is amazing how seductive it is to try and make item numbers 'meaningful'.
Over the last 20 years, in 4 companies, I have yet to see a meaningful item
number survive the test of time. Every time we got a new manager takes over
they seem to have their own "System" they want to use.

If I had a vote in Vantage design I would request that ALL tables be setup
with an internal 9 digit number for the record key with the "part-number",
"vendor-number", "customer-number", and related descriptions setup as
reference fields only. AKA the Customer table in Vantage. That way if you
can change the part-number field every 90 days to something new and 'more'
meaningful without being permanently locked in to one format that someone 15
years ago thought was cute.

It's the old KISS theory ....

Todd Anderson

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Caughey [mailto:caugheyt@...]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 2:09 PM
To: 'vantage@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: [Vantage] Customer ID Policies


We are having some "discussion" about customer IDs which is getting a little
deep (bordering on religion, so to speak). We converted from Classic where
ID's were numeric and very static. Once set they could not be changed. Way
back before I was on the scene it was decided to "number" them in the same
sequence as their names sorted. So Customer Number sorted reports were
roughly alphabetical. Over time this was blown out of the water by mergers
and name changes but Classic had good name sorting on reports so it didn't
matter too greatly.

Vantage is a lot nicer with the IDs and allows them to be changed while
retaining links via the "hidden" customer number. But Vantage also has very
poor reporting by name, for instance in 'Aged Recievables'. This makes it
very difficult to find a particular customer unless you have memorized the
IDs or had a special report written. Changing IDs to keep up with name
changes is a maintenance nightmare both in the system and chasing all the
"paper" records. We get at least one per week out of about 600 "buying"
customers. Here is where "religion" comes in. In all my years
administering databases I have insisted (where possible) on non-significance
in IDs. Start at 1 or A or whatever and assign them sequentially with no
built in meaning (like being name sorted). This is a hard sell to
management and users who don't understand the reasons for trading usability
against on-going maintenance costs.

Before I climb up to the pulpit to start preaching to my users I was
wondering how others handle this. Do you use significance in Customer IDs?
If so how do you manage changes? Any partially alpha IDs? Have you had to
write dozens or hundreds of reports sorted on name? Have you been able to
lower reliance on reports and force people to "go on-line" for info? If so
how? Any ideas or suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks,
-Todd Caughey
Harvey Vogel Mfg. Co.






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=162801.1342103.2934627/D=egroupmail/S=1700007183:N/A=
599088/*http://www.knowledgestorm.com/jump_white.html?c=Yahoo&n=eLert_Comput
ersInternet_Software_WhiteGridTime&t=ad> Click Here to Find Software Faster
Click Here to Find Software Faster

<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=162801.1342103.2934627/D=egroupmail/S=1700
007183:N/A=599088/rand=532185650>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .






Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


---------------------------
Long Business Systems, Inc.
12120 Elmwood Ave.
Cleveland, OH 44111
Phone: (216) 476-1416
Fax: (216) 476-1452
http://www.lbsi.com
---------------------------
Customer ID s are only eight characters. I have no input on part
numbers-they are too specific to each individual business.

Lydia


-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Taylor [mailto:keith@...]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 2:42 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Customer ID Policies

I agree 100% with Todd. Too many people try to use really intelligent
numbers. I have one client that uses 20 + digits and includes combinations
of letters, numbers, symbols, dots, dashes, slashes, etc. My years of
experience is that it is much quicker whenever possible to try and design
part numbers using the number keys.

Sit down and do data entry. Smart part numbers take too long to enter, too
many errors, etc.

Keith E. Taylor
Vice President
LBSi
Business Systems Consultants (Progress based ERP packages)
216/476-1416 ext 26
keith@...

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Anderson [mailto:tanderson@...]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 5:05 PM
To: 'vantage@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Customer ID Policies

Todd,

I agree with your premise.

Back in the 60's IBM did extensive studies between 'Meaningful' vs random
part numbering schemes. They compared a straight 6 or 9 digit item number
Vs meaningful item numbers. Note that 'Meaningful' item numbers frequently
went to 18-30 characters in overall length.

What they found was:

* The number of errors when keypunching or entering a straight numeric item
number were virtually ZERO compared with long part numbering schemes.
* That over a 20 year lifetime the amount of time spent entering long part
numbers was HUGE compared to short numeric item numbers.
* That what is "Meaningful" today is frequently gibberish 20 years from
now. ( The last company I worked for used a 24 char part number in a format
like xx-xxx-xxxxx-x-x-xxxx-xx --- no one alive could remember exactly what
the logic was .... )
* That a part 'number' should be just that .... use description fields for
'describing' a part. That way if you want to change a description you can
without having to try and mass change item numbers throughout your system.

It is amazing how seductive it is to try and make item numbers 'meaningful'.
Over the last 20 years, in 4 companies, I have yet to see a meaningful item
number survive the test of time. Every time we got a new manager takes over
they seem to have their own "System" they want to use.

If I had a vote in Vantage design I would request that ALL tables be setup
with an internal 9 digit number for the record key with the "part-number",
"vendor-number", "customer-number", and related descriptions setup as
reference fields only. AKA the Customer table in Vantage. That way if you
can change the part-number field every 90 days to something new and 'more'
meaningful without being permanently locked in to one format that someone 15
years ago thought was cute.

It's the old KISS theory ....

Todd Anderson

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Caughey [mailto:caugheyt@...]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 2:09 PM
To: 'vantage@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: [Vantage] Customer ID Policies


We are having some "discussion" about customer IDs which is getting a little
deep (bordering on religion, so to speak). We converted from Classic where
ID's were numeric and very static. Once set they could not be changed. Way
back before I was on the scene it was decided to "number" them in the same
sequence as their names sorted. So Customer Number sorted reports were
roughly alphabetical. Over time this was blown out of the water by mergers
and name changes but Classic had good name sorting on reports so it didn't
matter too greatly.

Vantage is a lot nicer with the IDs and allows them to be changed while
retaining links via the "hidden" customer number. But Vantage also has very
poor reporting by name, for instance in 'Aged Recievables'. This makes it
very difficult to find a particular customer unless you have memorized the
IDs or had a special report written. Changing IDs to keep up with name
changes is a maintenance nightmare both in the system and chasing all the
"paper" records. We get at least one per week out of about 600 "buying"
customers. Here is where "religion" comes in. In all my years
administering databases I have insisted (where possible) on non-significance
in IDs. Start at 1 or A or whatever and assign them sequentially with no
built in meaning (like being name sorted). This is a hard sell to
management and users who don't understand the reasons for trading usability
against on-going maintenance costs.

Before I climb up to the pulpit to start preaching to my users I was
wondering how others handle this. Do you use significance in Customer IDs?
If so how do you manage changes? Any partially alpha IDs? Have you had to
write dozens or hundreds of reports sorted on name? Have you been able to
lower reliance on reports and force people to "go on-line" for info? If so
how? Any ideas or suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks,
-Todd Caughey
Harvey Vogel Mfg. Co.






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=162801.1342103.2934627/D=egroupmail/S=1700007183:N/A=
599088/*http://www.knowledgestorm.com/jump_white.html?c=Yahoo&n=eLert_Comput
ersInternet_Software_WhiteGridTime&t=ad> Click Here to Find Software Faster
Click Here to Find Software Faster

<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=162801.1342103.2934627/D=egroupmail/S=1700
007183:N/A=599088/rand=532185650>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .






Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


---------------------------
Long Business Systems, Inc.
12120 Elmwood Ave.
Cleveland, OH 44111
Phone: (216) 476-1416
Fax: (216) 476-1452
http://www.lbsi.com
---------------------------





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
I've worked in companies that prove both methods. It really depends on how
well it is implemented, and how great the need is for intelligent part
numbers. If you have thousands of possible configurations for a given
product, intelligent part numbers can be worth the trouble of data entry.
One company I worked for had over 300,000 part numbers in their system. A
customer could call and say I need a part that does this, this, this, that,
that, and that for this many of this and that many of that. Anyone who
answered that call, could go directly to the specific part that the customer
needed, right off the top of their head, without having to search through a
bunch of data. The part numbering scheme was well conceived, and easy to
learn. A system could be developed to duplicate this, using a series of
code fields that replicated the parts of the part number, but Vantage isn't
that system.

On the other hand, if you don't have this kind of need, it is far simpler to
allow sequential part numbering. Because the combinations of configurations
aren't that complicated, descriptions can be handled in description fields.

Also remember, that there is some value in being able to identify parts on
the factory floor, in the stockroom, in engineering, in the field, etc.
This value isn't always quantifiable.

At any rate, I think this thread started out being about customer numbers.
On that topic, I think numbers work better.

-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Taylor [mailto:keith@...]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 3:42 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Customer ID Policies


I agree 100% with Todd. Too many people try to use really intelligent
numbers. I have one client that uses 20 + digits and includes combinations
of letters, numbers, symbols, dots, dashes, slashes, etc. My years of
experience is that it is much quicker whenever possible to try and design
part numbers using the number keys.

Sit down and do data entry. Smart part numbers take too long to enter, too
many errors, etc.

Keith E. Taylor
Vice President
LBSi
Business Systems Consultants (Progress based ERP packages)
216/476-1416 ext 26
keith@...

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Anderson [mailto:tanderson@...]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 5:05 PM
To: 'vantage@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Customer ID Policies

Todd,

I agree with your premise.

Back in the 60's IBM did extensive studies between 'Meaningful' vs random
part numbering schemes. They compared a straight 6 or 9 digit item number
Vs meaningful item numbers. Note that 'Meaningful' item numbers frequently
went to 18-30 characters in overall length.

What they found was:

* The number of errors when keypunching or entering a straight numeric item
number were virtually ZERO compared with long part numbering schemes.
* That over a 20 year lifetime the amount of time spent entering long part
numbers was HUGE compared to short numeric item numbers.
* That what is "Meaningful" today is frequently gibberish 20 years from
now. ( The last company I worked for used a 24 char part number in a format
like xx-xxx-xxxxx-x-x-xxxx-xx --- no one alive could remember exactly what
the logic was .... )
* That a part 'number' should be just that .... use description fields for
'describing' a part. That way if you want to change a description you can
without having to try and mass change item numbers throughout your system.

It is amazing how seductive it is to try and make item numbers 'meaningful'.
Over the last 20 years, in 4 companies, I have yet to see a meaningful item
number survive the test of time. Every time we got a new manager takes over
they seem to have their own "System" they want to use.

If I had a vote in Vantage design I would request that ALL tables be setup
with an internal 9 digit number for the record key with the "part-number",
"vendor-number", "customer-number", and related descriptions setup as
reference fields only. AKA the Customer table in Vantage. That way if you
can change the part-number field every 90 days to something new and 'more'
meaningful without being permanently locked in to one format that someone 15
years ago thought was cute.

It's the old KISS theory ....

Todd Anderson

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Caughey [mailto:caugheyt@...]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 2:09 PM
To: 'vantage@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: [Vantage] Customer ID Policies


We are having some "discussion" about customer IDs which is getting a little
deep (bordering on religion, so to speak). We converted from Classic where
ID's were numeric and very static. Once set they could not be changed. Way
back before I was on the scene it was decided to "number" them in the same
sequence as their names sorted. So Customer Number sorted reports were
roughly alphabetical. Over time this was blown out of the water by mergers
and name changes but Classic had good name sorting on reports so it didn't
matter too greatly.

Vantage is a lot nicer with the IDs and allows them to be changed while
retaining links via the "hidden" customer number. But Vantage also has very
poor reporting by name, for instance in 'Aged Recievables'. This makes it
very difficult to find a particular customer unless you have memorized the
IDs or had a special report written. Changing IDs to keep up with name
changes is a maintenance nightmare both in the system and chasing all the
"paper" records. We get at least one per week out of about 600 "buying"
customers. Here is where "religion" comes in. In all my years
administering databases I have insisted (where possible) on non-significance
in IDs. Start at 1 or A or whatever and assign them sequentially with no
built in meaning (like being name sorted). This is a hard sell to
management and users who don't understand the reasons for trading usability
against on-going maintenance costs.

Before I climb up to the pulpit to start preaching to my users I was
wondering how others handle this. Do you use significance in Customer IDs?
If so how do you manage changes? Any partially alpha IDs? Have you had to
write dozens or hundreds of reports sorted on name? Have you been able to
lower reliance on reports and force people to "go on-line" for info? If so
how? Any ideas or suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks,
-Todd Caughey
Harvey Vogel Mfg. Co.






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=162801.1342103.2934627/D=egroupmail/S=1700007183:N/A=
599088/*http://www.knowledgestorm.com/jump_white.html?c=Yahoo&n=eLert_Comput
ersInternet_Software_WhiteGridTime&t=ad> Click Here to Find Software Faster
Click Here to Find Software Faster

<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=162801.1342103.2934627/D=egroupmail/S=1700
007183:N/A=599088/rand=532185650>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .






Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


---------------------------
Long Business Systems, Inc.
12120 Elmwood Ave.
Cleveland, OH 44111
Phone: (216) 476-1416
Fax: (216) 476-1452
http://www.lbsi.com
---------------------------





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Todd
When we moved from Classic to Vantage we adopted a Name to ID rule. The
first 4 of the first word in the name + the first four of the last significant word
in the name. The ID'd are easily recognizable and form a sort by ID that is
close to sort by name. When there are mergers or name changes occur
changing the ID is optional. Our Customer list is close to yours but our
database is about 1/2 G.



On 5 Mar 01, at 14:09, Todd Caughey wrote:

To: "'vantage@yahoogroups.com'" <vantage@yahoogroups.com>
From: Todd Caughey <caugheyt@...>
Date sent: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 14:09:05 -0600
Send reply to: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Customer ID Policies

> We are having some "discussion" about customer IDs which is getting a little
> deep (bordering on religion, so to speak). We converted from Classic where ID's
> were numeric and very static. Once set they could not be changed. Way back
> before I was on the scene it was decided to "number" them in the same sequence
> as their names sorted. So Customer Number sorted reports were roughly
> alphabetical. Over time this was blown out of the water by mergers and name
> changes but Classic had good name sorting on reports so it didn't matter too
> greatly.
>
> Vantage is a lot nicer with the IDs and allows them to be changed while
> retaining links via the "hidden" customer number. But Vantage also has very
> poor reporting by name, for instance in 'Aged Recievables'. This makes it very
> difficult to find a particular customer unless you have memorized the IDs or had
> a special report written. Changing IDs to keep up with name changes is a
> maintenance nightmare both in the system and chasing all the "paper" records.
> We get at least one per week out of about 600 "buying" customers. Here is where
> "religion" comes in. In all my years administering databases I have insisted
> (where possible) on non-significance in IDs. Start at 1 or A or whatever and
> assign them sequentially with no built in meaning (like being name sorted).
> This is a hard sell to management and users who don't understand the reasons for
> trading usability against on-going maintenance costs.
>
> Before I climb up to the pulpit to start preaching to my users I was
> wondering how others handle this. Do you use significance in Customer IDs? If
> so how do you manage changes? Any partially alpha IDs? Have you had to write
> dozens or hundreds of reports sorted on name? Have you been able to lower
> reliance on reports and force people to "go on-line" for info? If so how? Any
> ideas or suggestions would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> -Todd Caughey
> Harvey Vogel Mfg. Co.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>


Russ Dover
rustover@...
717 336 2340 voice
717 336 2646 fax
717 336 7507 Days at work
Todd,
We are similar to Russ. We use the first four of the first word but use the
first four of the post (zip) code too in order to differentiate between
different sites for the same co. Yet to do much reporting but I think it
will work.....

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russ Dover [mailto:rustover@...]
> Sent: 06 March 2001 00:43
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Vantage] Customer ID Policies
>
>
> Todd
> When we moved from Classic to Vantage we adopted a Name to ID
> rule. The
> first 4 of the first word in the name + the first four of the
> last significant word
> in the name. The ID'd are easily recognizable and form a sort
> by ID that is
> close to sort by name. When there are mergers or name changes occur
> changing the ID is optional. Our Customer list is close to
> yours but our
> database is about 1/2 G.
>
>
>
> On 5 Mar 01, at 14:09, Todd Caughey wrote:
>
> To: "'vantage@yahoogroups.com'"
> <vantage@yahoogroups.com>
> From: Todd Caughey <caugheyt@...>
> Date sent: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 14:09:05 -0600
> Send reply to: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Vantage] Customer ID Policies
>
> > We are having some "discussion" about customer IDs which is
> getting a little
> > deep (bordering on religion, so to speak). We converted
> from Classic where ID's
> > were numeric and very static. Once set they could not be
> changed. Way back
> > before I was on the scene it was decided to "number" them
> in the same sequence
> > as their names sorted. So Customer Number sorted reports
> were roughly
> > alphabetical. Over time this was blown out of the water by
> mergers and name
> > changes but Classic had good name sorting on reports so it
> didn't matter too
> > greatly.
> >
> > Vantage is a lot nicer with the IDs and allows them to be
> changed while
> > retaining links via the "hidden" customer number. But
> Vantage also has very
> > poor reporting by name, for instance in 'Aged Recievables'.
> This makes it very
> > difficult to find a particular customer unless you have
> memorized the IDs or had
> > a special report written. Changing IDs to keep up with
> name changes is a
> > maintenance nightmare both in the system and chasing all
> the "paper" records.
> > We get at least one per week out of about 600 "buying"
> customers. Here is where
> > "religion" comes in. In all my years administering
> databases I have insisted
> > (where possible) on non-significance in IDs. Start at 1 or
> A or whatever and
> > assign them sequentially with no built in meaning (like
> being name sorted).
> > This is a hard sell to management and users who don't
> understand the reasons for
> > trading usability against on-going maintenance costs.
> >
> > Before I climb up to the pulpit to start preaching to my users I was
> > wondering how others handle this. Do you use significance
> in Customer IDs? If
> > so how do you manage changes? Any partially alpha IDs?
> Have you had to write
> > dozens or hundreds of reports sorted on name? Have you
> been able to lower
> > reliance on reports and force people to "go on-line" for
> info? If so how? Any
> > ideas or suggestions would be appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Todd Caughey
> > Harvey Vogel Mfg. Co.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>


Russ Dover
rustover@...
717 336 2340 voice
717 336 2646 fax
717 336 7507 Days at work




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Thanks to everyone with suggestions. I took a look at the help for Customer
ID and it is pretty clear Epicor intended for the IDs to carry meaning,
particularly name related, thus the low number of reports with name sorts.
So if we want std. reports in roughly name order we will have to conform.
Now that we have been implemented for over 6 months I am going to propose a
project to re-ID every customer under a new scheme. I am not sure if four
characters from the name will be enough given all the "American"
something-or-others we have. I do like the zip code idea and may try 5 from
name plus 3 for the ZIP sectional center which should not be duplicated for
most customers with several locations.

-Todd C.
Harvey Vogel Mfg. Co.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Roberts [mailto:jasonroberts@...]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 2:47 AM
To: 'vantage@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Customer ID Policies


Todd,
We are similar to Russ. We use the first four of the first word but use the
first four of the post (zip) code too in order to differentiate between
different sites for the same co. Yet to do much reporting but I think it
will work.....

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russ Dover [mailto:rustover@...]
> Sent: 06 March 2001 00:43
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Vantage] Customer ID Policies
>
>
> Todd
> When we moved from Classic to Vantage we adopted a Name to ID
> rule. The
> first 4 of the first word in the name + the first four of the
> last significant word
> in the name. The ID'd are easily recognizable and form a sort
> by ID that is
> close to sort by name. When there are mergers or name changes occur
> changing the ID is optional. Our Customer list is close to
> yours but our
> database is about 1/2 G.
>
>
>
> On 5 Mar 01, at 14:09, Todd Caughey wrote:
>
> To: "'vantage@yahoogroups.com'"
> <vantage@yahoogroups.com>
> From: Todd Caughey <caugheyt@...>
> Date sent: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 14:09:05 -0600
> Send reply to: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Vantage] Customer ID Policies
>
> > We are having some "discussion" about customer IDs which is
> getting a little
> > deep (bordering on religion, so to speak). We converted
> from Classic where ID's
> > were numeric and very static. Once set they could not be
> changed. Way back
> > before I was on the scene it was decided to "number" them
> in the same sequence
> > as their names sorted. So Customer Number sorted reports
> were roughly
> > alphabetical. Over time this was blown out of the water by
> mergers and name
> > changes but Classic had good name sorting on reports so it
> didn't matter too
> > greatly.
> >
> > Vantage is a lot nicer with the IDs and allows them to be
> changed while
> > retaining links via the "hidden" customer number. But
> Vantage also has very
> > poor reporting by name, for instance in 'Aged Recievables'.
> This makes it very
> > difficult to find a particular customer unless you have
> memorized the IDs or had
> > a special report written. Changing IDs to keep up with
> name changes is a
> > maintenance nightmare both in the system and chasing all
> the "paper" records.
> > We get at least one per week out of about 600 "buying"
> customers. Here is where
> > "religion" comes in. In all my years administering
> databases I have insisted
> > (where possible) on non-significance in IDs. Start at 1 or
> A or whatever and
> > assign them sequentially with no built in meaning (like
> being name sorted).
> > This is a hard sell to management and users who don't
> understand the reasons for
> > trading usability against on-going maintenance costs.
> >
> > Before I climb up to the pulpit to start preaching to my users I was
> > wondering how others handle this. Do you use significance
> in Customer IDs? If
> > so how do you manage changes? Any partially alpha IDs?
> Have you had to write
> > dozens or hundreds of reports sorted on name? Have you
> been able to lower
> > reliance on reports and force people to "go on-line" for
> info? If so how? Any
> > ideas or suggestions would be appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Todd Caughey
> > Harvey Vogel Mfg. Co.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
>
>
>


Russ Dover
rustover@...
717 336 2340 voice
717 336 2646 fax
717 336 7507 Days at work




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=162801.1342103.2934627/D=egroupmail/S=1700007183:N/A=
599088/*http://www.knowledgestorm.com/jump_white.html?c=Yahoo&n=eLert_Comput
ersInternet_Software_WhiteGridTime&t=ad> Click Here to Find Software Faster
Click Here to Find Software Faster

<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=162801.1342103.2934627/D=egroupmail/S=1700
007183:N/A=599088/rand=511754694>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]