Most wanted features/solutions

Make it possible to change the UOM Class and UOM on parts that have some transactions.
Change parts to have a Partnum in the background like custNum and VendNum to allow fixing part’s that have some issues.

1 Like

Total selfish one here. It would be great to be able to delete the whole PO from the Container Landed Cost instead of line at a time. You have the ability to add multiple PO lines, but not delete, which is a shame.

Going the customisation route for the time being.

***Added to Feature Requests and Suggestions

1 Like

This is standard in E10

1 Like

I have actually created an updatable dashboard for that… I have also submitted this to Development so that it can become base. The updatable dashboard allows you to “Add” a line… it asks for the part number, and then looks up the “current” revision… then it asks for the new revision (if you want one), then the ECO Group. It auto creates the revision, checks out the new rev, and gets details… then goes to a new line for the next part. Since its a dashboard, it allows for copy/paste into the dashboard. built 100% with widgets (if I remember correctly). Sorry to say, each time I have built this, it has been custom because each customer has needed UD Fields in PartRev also filled out.

This one is tough… part revisions require an entirely new layer of data, with new indexes. The best workarounds include:

  1. using LOT CONTROL to specify the revision.
  2. using a part suffix to store the lot number (used a lot in Aerospace)

The way I describe our part/rev system is that all future revisions should be design enhancements of the old rev, and should be backwards compatible… but if the new design is not backwards compatible, then it needs a new part number. At my old employer, we took this approach WAY back before computers (1950s) and used Lot numbers to control/track what part revision was actually delivered… they still do this today.

A post was split to a new topic: Allow the creation of custom user defined tables

gee tks never thought of using DMT for that!

But I agree with Randy and Simon as Not all have DMT and IT Should be part of the standard package not an option… :wink:

Nevertheless, needing to go DMT for this I think would be a more lengthly process than just offer it within the Maintenance form…tks for the suggestion though…



But only for parts that the part you are looking at goes into. If you just have list of parts you can’t (unless I’m missing something…)

Provide BAQs to Trackers that can be amended or linked to other tables. Currently, this can be accomplished using a customization and a BAQ dv. However, it would be so much more useful to provide a system BAQ that can be automatically enhanced to link to other tables.

Each form has Global Options - but they are not global. Let’s let the user set these things globally and not have to do it on each form.


Territory Security - the current implementation makes it impossible for a salesperson to work on an entire account (parent in one territory, offices in another territory) when you have one Salesrep per territory and are trying to protect your overall account base from being stolen when one disgruntled salesrep leaves - for example that is.

Plus it has other limitations when working with international customers, or working with BAQs and Dashboards for summary information, pipeline reporting, etc.


Enterprise Configurator - be able to ‘Get Details’ in the Sales company, from the manufacturing company, so Cost+ calculations can be made.

Currently, the only way for a sales company to be cost+ is to build a replica of the entire MOM/BOM inside the configurator code to calculate the same thing “Get Details” does.

1 Like

Added the option to “UpVote” on this question to bubble the most popular suggestions up.

You can only vote once in the whole topic though. Is that the intention?

That’s the functionality right now.

so choose wisely… :thinking:

1 Like

@Banderson I think it’s only because the conversion that was run on the thread for the feature. I think moving forward, on a fresh thread, it should work properly so long as entries are not a response to a comment.

I think I found a better solution I have a feeling this will be a very popular thread. So perhaps have a suggestions category with up Vote on each individual topic may be a bit easier to digest and also each individual suggestion can be discussed individually. I’ll work on that this evening.


Ok @Banderson I added a new category called Feature Requests and Suggestions

Every topic in this category can be Voted On and sorted by votes. This allows to have 1 topic per suggestion and to bubble to most popular suggestions to the top. It allow allows individual discussions on each suggestion. It also allows you to vote for multiple topics.

I have moved some of these in this thread over there. If you made some feel free to move your own. Or re-create it over there.

Heads up @Bart_Elia, @erikj, @Edge, @Rich


8 votes -choose wisely :smiley:

1 Like