Order Entry Need By Date

Charlie,

Thank You! Thank You!

Capable to Promise worked.

Can you tell me more about BPM? Could it populate the promise date
field for ALL orders (let's say at night) so that when we fax order
verifications (the next morning) the promise dates are populated?

Also, do you know of a way to disable the Need By Date over riding the
Due Date? In other words, I'd like the due date to remain intact
always.

Best Regards,

Mary

ITW


--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "CharlieSmith" <CSmith@...> wrote:
>
> Capable to Promise can do that, otherwise a BPM could be written to
> populate the field with the current date + part lead time.
>
>
>
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf
> Of maryitw
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 3:26 PM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Vantage] Order Entry Need By Date
>
>
>
> Is there a way to automatically populate the "need by date" with the
> part lead time on the order entry screen? In other words, when a part
> is added to an order, the need by date is automatically filled in
based
> on the lead time for the part.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mary
> ITW
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Is there a way to automatically populate the "need by date" with the
part lead time on the order entry screen? In other words, when a part
is added to an order, the need by date is automatically filled in based
on the lead time for the part.

Thanks,

Mary
ITW
Capable to Promise can do that, otherwise a BPM could be written to
populate the field with the current date + part lead time.



From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of maryitw
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 3:26 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Order Entry Need By Date



Is there a way to automatically populate the "need by date" with the
part lead time on the order entry screen? In other words, when a part
is added to an order, the need by date is automatically filled in based
on the lead time for the part.

Thanks,

Mary
ITW





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