On Friday, it’s EpiUsers Frideas Day! Have you been to the Epicor Ideas Portal recently? If so, are there some ideas you want to encourage other users to vote for? Maybe want to add comments to an existing idea?
1 Like
Ability to Set Minimum Order Quantity on the Supplier Level and Have it Referenced in PO Entry.
This has come up a couple times recently in EpiUsers forum where users would like to set a Minimum Order Quantity at the Supplier Level for a given part.
This can loosely be done via Supplier Price List setting a Price Break with a MOQ and a Price Modifier of 0. At least it is a record of a MOQ. However, there is no direct impact on PO Entry, preventing a buyer from ordering less than that qty from a specific supplier.
Would be a nice enhancement to have this type of interlock available (be it a hard stop (error) or at least a warning).
A new column on VendPart for MOQ would be ideal, eliminating the need to use a bogus price break.
5 Likes
5 Likes
Some of old favorites of mine:
- Block leading spaces as IDs
- Move more Customer settings to Customer Groups
- Ability to clear out LastCCDate in PartWhse (for resetting a cycle count program)
- Credit memo generated from RMA uses wrong product group when original invoice is populated
- I know, this one is so minor, but it’s the principle of it. You want to be thorough when dealing with money, and yet it backfires and you end up in a worse spot than if you had been lazy. I hate when the software encourages and even forces bad habits.
- Are RMAs really that obscure that no one has noticed this before?
And then I have some expired Ideas that I actually feel more passionate about. So I’ll have to make new Ideas for those and then drum up votes for them. Maybe in January…
- Allow users to choose firm job numbers
- Longer comments on Quantity Adjustment, other places
- Explain that PO unit prices are multiplied by SUPPLIER quantity
- Purchase Advisor receipt date is inaccurate
- DMT should not require fields that are not required (I edited that - the admins renamed it and misspelled “DMT”)
- AP “Final Invoice” box should NOT be true automatically for partial invoices
If anyone else likes one of these and want to make the new Idea for me, feel free…
1 Like
This is a hill I will die on, I do not understand all the backlash against this. The landing pages are utterly useless 99.9999% of the time. Not trying to start a war, they are just clunky, hard to use and mostly contain data that nobody needs.
The first 100 Parts… big whoop… who cares? anyway I digress
5 Likes
Because its a lot easier for the people who DON’T want it to hide it, than it is for the people who DO want it to create it from scratch. If you don’t see the value for yourself than fine, but that doesn’t mean its not valuable to other people.
8 Likes
point taken, they should have a toggle.
9 Likes
I have three that I would LOVE to see implemented related to attachments (non-ECM).
-
Attachment File Type → Duplicate Attachment Mode → Allow Human Readable Time Stamp vs. Epoch/Unix
Log In - Epicor Identity -
Create one more level of folders in standard Attachments based upon SO#, QU#, Part#, etc.
Log In - Epicor Identity -
FILE ATTACHMENTS: Add functionality to rename at the time of upload, and allow editing the file name after upload.
Log In - Epicor Identity
These are three, simple (not simple to program, maybe) things that should happen IMHO. Adoption of these would be huge for us.
TIA!
1 Like
I felt that way initially as well. After living with them a while, the landing pages act as a bit of an advanced search if you turn on the grid filter so our users like it. Plus if you know the part number a fast way to open the part without having to open the Search slider.
I think an improved landing page is a better solution. Loading the first 100 records may not be the best solution.
1 Like
Sabotage … ?? 
2 Likes
We just added a searchable Part Landing page again (custom). Honestly, we search it all the time, in particular looking up parts for sale. We have 20-30 variations of each product that is a finished good and when our reps. are quoting, they would prefer to have a 2nd screen open that allows them to search the parts rather than from the add line item in the quote.
In addition, when we are adding new parts (w/ a slightly different part no.), the dashboard (or equiv) is the best place to compare them or see what is missing.
We also use the dashboard to download specific part product groups, or a set of parts (based on part no.), so that we can change a description, or add an attribute and then reupload them through a DMT.
Yes, I say bring it back for sure, make it a toggle, makes real sense to us.
2 Likes
AND THAT is what we are aiming for <:safe_harbor: insert safe harbor statement here! 
> but we dont quite have that development done yet… once we have the flag to make this optional, our plan is to push it across the apps.
10 Likes
Just curious… have you considered a quick search option for the part number… the people doing quoting could press search in the part field, and then enter any search criteria… once the part is found, they could simply select that item instead of copy/paste or manually typing.
1 Like
There is an idea out there to make it optional - doesn’t look like its marked in development?
Make landing page optional
@timshuwy
I just fixed that idea… it wasnt the admins who renamed it… this was a typo from the beginning, and nobody noticed. No biggie… fixed now. thanks for pointing this out.
1 Like
Well… you feel like unexpiring it also? You volunteered; just saying.
things are not marked as “in development” until they actually are “in development”… it is still planned to get done but the release date is not yet set.
1 Like