The “expand it” idea exists already. Vote if you agree.(But also take my poll please.)
I actually disagree. (Read this for context.)
Yeah pretty useless functionality…
Bump for votes
We, like a lot of other companies, do a fair amount of inspections. There needs to be a way to identify if someone can inspect but maybe just a flag on the employee profile. We use a customization to ensure that an inspector is a valid employee (but not necessarily a user). This might not match others.
Even though this table is simplistic, it does now give us a place to do customizations for other criteria that should not be on the user profile table or employee table.
I agree with Graeme. An Inspector could be an outside service for example.
That does make sense. Well at least some people are making use of it - in a tangential way.
So, it sounds like you don’t want Epicor to expand the functionality - you’d rather have that control. (I can see that!)
For example Jason, we just finished a customization to this table to add a UD table onto this form. We check for the inspection form, level of certification and what type of unit is being inspected. I bet some of the people in other industries could tell you more seemly arbitrary rules for inspections that regulators dream up!
Took me a while to get this - so the point is that it could be someone who is not a user in your system and not even an employee either. (You may never even learn their name! Only someone from Inspection Industries, LLC or whatever.)
I can definitely see that as a part of the setup.
Anyway, I guess let sleeping dogs lie after all. Any attempt to “improve” it all in any way will just make everyone angry. (See: Part landing page removal.)
I could even envision an IoT use case where the measurements might come from a particular metrology machine.