|
Point-Of-Sale Software - visit here for - MS Point Of Sale software discussed here
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by PGC_Developer on January 22, 2010, 11:18 am
Please log in for more thread options
I am in the process of trying to create a store level report by department,
catagory, and item of the moneys received in total by both deposit on work
orders and on direct sales that are not work orders. We require a 100%
deposit (of a single tender type) on work orders. I then need to break this
deposit down by department, catagory and item. Then I must add that to the
same break down for direct sales. Thereby getting a total of all moneys
received during a specified period for the store across all registers.
So basically I am trying to figure out the data structure and organization
of the transaction/order data and how they are related.
While doing this I have found, in our existing data, 11 work orders from
last year that were invoiced twice on seperate registers using the same
single deposit as the tender. One of those 11 sales transactions appears to
have occured at exactly the same time on two different registers. The others
are all within minutes/seconds of each other. I have looked in the journal
batches to verify this and journaled receipts were found in their respective
batches.
How is this possible? My assumption (love that word!) is that a work order
can only be filled once and that a deposit on a work order can also only be
used once during the sales transaction tending process. Can multiple people
be working on processing the work order at the same time? If so, shouldn't
there be something in place to prevent this from happening?
Our situation is that work orders get filled in groups. Work orders X thru
Y are "picked" and prepared for shipping at the same time. At that point it
is reported back to the office that they have been picked and are ready to be
invoiced. At that point two people on different registers start recall the
work orders and generate the respective invoice. Is it possible that both
people got "in sync" with each other while processing? Is it possible that
the system allows for the commital of the invoice without "knowing" that
someone else is also process the invoice at that time? Shouldn't the system
check the current status of a workorder prior to the commital of the invioce?
Did we just stumble in to a big logic hole?
Any info would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Terry
|
|
Posted by Jeff @ Check Point Software on January 22, 2010, 4:33 pm
Please log in for more thread options
: quoted-printable
Terry,
Don't think it can be done. =20
If the order/sale is made by a split payment (1/2 cash, 1/2 credit =
card), how is the payment by item/department/category gonna split?
You're gonna have to rethink this money thing.
As far as your deposit pickups at the same time, this is a bug/design =
flaw that MDR refuses to fix. The issue is that there is nothing in the =
program that if one register is working with deposits/sales/holds that =
stops another register working on the _same_ deposits/sales/holds. We =
had that worked out in our own designed program over 20 years ago.
--=20
Jeff=20
Check Point Software
Search this newsgroup -- http://tinyurl.com/2lmk4w (Stolen from DRS)
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
You must be using Outlook Express/Windows Mail or some other type of =
newsgroup reader to
see and download the file attachment(s). If you are not using a reader, =
follow
the link below to setup Outlook Express. Click on "Open with =
newsreader"
under the MS Retail Management System on the right.
http://tinyurl.com/75bgz
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
I am in the process of trying to create a store level report by =
department,=20
catagory, and item of the moneys received in total by both deposit on =
work=20
orders and on direct sales that are not work orders. We require a =
100%=20
deposit (of a single tender type) on work orders. I then need to =
break this=20
deposit down by department, catagory and item. Then I must add that =
to the=20
same break down for direct sales. Thereby getting a total of all =
moneys=20
received during a specified period for the store across all registers.
So basically I am trying to figure out the data structure and =
organization=20
of the transaction/order data and how they are related.
While doing this I have found, in our existing data, 11 work orders =
from=20
last year that were invoiced twice on seperate registers using the =
same=20
single deposit as the tender. One of those 11 sales transactions =
appears to=20
have occured at exactly the same time on two different registers. The =
others=20
are all within minutes/seconds of each other. I have looked in the =
journal=20
batches to verify this and journaled receipts were found in their =
respective=20
batches.
How is this possible? My assumption (love that word!) is that a work =
order=20
can only be filled once and that a deposit on a work order can also =
only be=20
used once during the sales transaction tending process. Can multiple =
people=20
be working on processing the work order at the same time? If so, =
shouldn't=20
there be something in place to prevent this from happening?
Our situation is that work orders get filled in groups. Work orders X =
thru=20
Y are "picked" and prepared for shipping at the same time. At that =
point it=20
is reported back to the office that they have been picked and are =
ready to be=20
invoiced. At that point two people on different registers start =
recall the=20
work orders and generate the respective invoice. Is it possible that =
both=20
people got "in sync" with each other while processing? Is it possible =
that=20
the system allows for the commital of the invoice without "knowing" =
that=20
someone else is also process the invoice at that time? Shouldn't the =
system=20
check the current status of a workorder prior to the commital of the =
invioce?
Did we just stumble in to a big logic hole?
Any info would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Terry
------=_NextPart_000_00F8_01CA9B67.7D081960
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Dutf-8 http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META name=3DGENERATOR content=3D"MSHTML 8.00.7600.16490"></HEAD>
<BODY style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: =
15px"=20
id=3DMailContainerBody leftMargin=3D0 topMargin=3D0 =
CanvasTabStop=3D"true"=20
name=3D"Compose message area">
<DIV><FONT color=3D#008000>Terry,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#008000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#008000>Don't think it can be done. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#008000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#008000>If the order/sale is made by a split payment (1/2 cash,=20
1/2 credit card), how is the payment by item/department/category gonna=20
split?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#008000></FONT><FONT color=3D#008000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#008000>You're gonna have to rethink this money=20
thing.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#008000></FONT><FONT color=3D#008000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#008000>As far as your deposit pickups at the same time, this=20
is a bug/design flaw that MDR refuses to fix. The issue is =
that there=20
is nothing in the program that if one register is working with=20
deposits/sales/holds that stops another register working on the =
_same_=20
deposits/sales/holds. We had that worked out in our own designed =
program=20
over 20 years ago.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR>-- <BR><BR>Jeff <BR>Check Point Software</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#008000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Search this newsgroup -- <A=20
href=3D"http://tinyurl.com/2lmk4w">http://tinyurl.com/2lmk4w</A> (Stolen=20
from =
DRS)<BR>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#008000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>You must be using Outlook Express/Windows Mail or some other type of=20
newsgroup reader to<BR>see and download the file attachment(s). If =
you are=20
not using a reader, follow<BR>the link below to setup Outlook =
Express. =20
Click on "Open with newsreader"<BR>under the MS Retail Management System =
on the=20
right.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#008000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><A=20
href=3D"http://tinyurl.com/75bgz">http://tinyurl.com/75bgz</A><BR>=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#008000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#008000></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #008000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; =
PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"PGC_Developer" <<A=20
=
ssions.microsoft.com</A>>=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
C3C3D-3C4D-4B80-AC80-DF377EF95AAE@microsoft.com</A>...</DIV>I=20
am in the process of trying to create a store level report by =
department,=20
<BR>catagory, and item of the moneys received in total by both deposit =
on work=20
<BR>orders and on direct sales that are not work orders. We =
require a=20
100% <BR>deposit (of a single tender type) on work orders. I =
then need=20
to break this <BR>deposit down by department, catagory and item. =
Then I=20
must add that to the <BR>same break down for direct sales. =
Thereby=20
getting a total of all moneys <BR>received during a specified period =
for the=20
store across all registers.<BR><BR>So basically I am trying to figure =
out the=20
data structure and organization <BR>of the transaction/order data and =
how they=20
are related.<BR><BR>While doing this I have found, in our existing =
data, 11=20
work orders from <BR>last year that were invoiced twice on seperate =
registers=20
using the same <BR>single deposit as the tender. One of those 11 =
sales=20
transactions appears to <BR>have occured at exactly the same time on =
two=20
different registers. The others <BR>are all within =
minutes/seconds of=20
each other. I have looked in the journal <BR>batches to verify =
this and=20
journaled receipts were found in their respective =
<BR>batches.<BR><BR>How is=20
this possible? My assumption (love that word!) is that a work =
order=20
<BR>can only be filled once and that a deposit on a work order can =
also only=20
be <BR>used once during the sales transaction tending process. =
Can=20
multiple people <BR>be working on processing the work order at the =
same=20
time? If so, shouldn't <BR>there be something in place to =
prevent this=20
from happening?<BR><BR>Our situation is that work orders get filled in =
groups. Work orders X thru <BR>Y are "picked" and prepared for =
shipping=20
at the same time. At that point it <BR>is reported back to the =
office=20
that they have been picked and are ready to be <BR>invoiced. At =
that=20
point two people on different registers start recall the <BR>work =
orders and=20
generate the respective invoice. Is it possible that both =
<BR>people got=20
"in sync" with each other while processing? Is it possible that =
<BR>the=20
system allows for the commital of the invoice without "knowing" that=20
<BR>someone else is also process the invoice at that time? =
Shouldn't the=20
system <BR>check the current status of a workorder prior to the =
commital of=20
the invioce?<BR><BR>Did we just stumble in to a big logic =
hole?<BR><BR>Any=20
info would be greatly=20
appreciated.<BR><BR>Thanks,<BR>Terry</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=
|
|
Posted by PGC_Developer on January 25, 2010, 9:47 am
Please log in for more thread options
Jeff,
Thanks for the reply.
With the report we are interested in only knowing the total by
dept/catagory/item, but not by tender type. We are a state agency and need
to report our revenue to our headquarters by a "revenue code" that is
assigned to each dept. We are only concerned that the total tendered equals
the grand total for the break down.
With what I have found so far while poking around the database, I will be
using SQL user defined functions to:
1. Draw out the details for open work orders from the orders tables for the
reporting period.
2. Draw out the details for sales not based on work orders from the
transaction tables for the reporting period.
3. Draw out details for sales based on work orders. This is more
complicated since I will need to calculate the delta if the work order was
placed prior to the processing of the sale. Otherwise the data from the
transaction would be used.
I will then use a SQL user defined function to union all three sets of data
together for a report showing the total money received during the reporting
period, but not based on tender type. In this way they should be able to
report all revenues received during the reporting period whether it is a day,
week, or year. That's the plan so far. But you know what they say about
plans!
Regarding the processing of work orders by multiple registers at the same
time; how can I correct the data for the 11 work orders that I have
identified? I would think that the inventory movement doubled. I would also
think that the "redeemed deposits" might also be misstated. Can a custom key
be created that the user could click prior to tendering the sale that would
hit the database to determine if the work order was still open? While not
the greatest solution, it might close the windows a little bit on the time
frame that allows the problem to occur.
Any help, advise, or information would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Terry
"Jeff @ Check Point Software" wrote:

> Terry,
>
> Don't think it can be done.
>
> If the order/sale is made by a split payment (1/2 cash, 1/2 credit card),
> how is the payment by item/department/category gonna split?
>
> You're gonna have to rethink this money thing.
>
> As far as your deposit pickups at the same time, this is a bug/design flaw
> that MDR refuses to fix. The issue is that there is nothing in the
> program that if one register is working with deposits/sales/holds that
> stops another register working on the _same_ deposits/sales/holds. We had
> that worked out in our own designed program over 20 years ago.
>
> --
>
> Jeff
> Check Point Software
>
> Search this newsgroup -- http://tinyurl.com/2lmk4w (Stolen from DRS)
> =====================================================
>
> You must be using Outlook Express/Windows Mail or some other type of
> newsgroup reader to
> see and download the file attachment(s). If you are not using a reader,
> follow
> the link below to setup Outlook Express. Click on "Open with newsreader"
> under the MS Retail Management System on the right.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/75bgz
> =====================================================
>
>
> I am in the process of trying to create a store level report by
> department,
> catagory, and item of the moneys received in total by both deposit on
> work
> orders and on direct sales that are not work orders. We require a 100%
> deposit (of a single tender type) on work orders. I then need to break
> this
> deposit down by department, catagory and item. Then I must add that to
> the
> same break down for direct sales. Thereby getting a total of all moneys
> received during a specified period for the store across all registers.
>
> So basically I am trying to figure out the data structure and
> organization
> of the transaction/order data and how they are related.
>
> While doing this I have found, in our existing data, 11 work orders from
> last year that were invoiced twice on seperate registers using the same
> single deposit as the tender. One of those 11 sales transactions
> appears to
> have occured at exactly the same time on two different registers. The
> others
> are all within minutes/seconds of each other. I have looked in the
> journal
> batches to verify this and journaled receipts were found in their
> respective
> batches.
>
> How is this possible? My assumption (love that word!) is that a work
> order
> can only be filled once and that a deposit on a work order can also only
> be
> used once during the sales transaction tending process. Can multiple
> people
> be working on processing the work order at the same time? If so,
> shouldn't
> there be something in place to prevent this from happening?
>
> Our situation is that work orders get filled in groups. Work orders X
> thru
> Y are "picked" and prepared for shipping at the same time. At that
> point it
> is reported back to the office that they have been picked and are ready
> to be
> invoiced. At that point two people on different registers start recall
> the
> work orders and generate the respective invoice. Is it possible that
> both
> people got "in sync" with each other while processing? Is it possible
> that
> the system allows for the commital of the invoice without "knowing" that
> someone else is also process the invoice at that time? Shouldn't the
> system
> check the current status of a workorder prior to the commital of the
> invioce?
>
> Did we just stumble in to a big logic hole?
>
> Any info would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Terry
>
|
This Thread
Related Posts
Latest Posts
|
|
|
>
> Don't think it can be done.
>
> If the order/sale is made by a split payment (1/2 cash, 1/2 credit card),
> how is the payment by item/department/category gonna split?
>
> You're gonna have to rethink this money thing.
>
> As far as your deposit pickups at the same time, this is a bug/design flaw
> that MDR refuses to fix. The issue is that there is nothing in the
> program that if one register is working with deposits/sales/holds that
> stops another register working on the _same_ deposits/sales/holds. We had
> that worked out in our own designed program over 20 years ago.
>
> --
>
> Jeff
> Check Point Software
>
> Search this newsgroup -- http://tinyurl.com/2lmk4w (Stolen from DRS)
> =====================================================
>
> You must be using Outlook Express/Windows Mail or some other type of
> newsgroup reader to
> see and download the file attachment(s). If you are not using a reader,
> follow
> the link below to setup Outlook Express. Click on "Open with newsreader"
> under the MS Retail Management System on the right.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/75bgz
> =====================================================
>
>
> I am in the process of trying to create a store level report by
> department,
> catagory, and item of the moneys received in total by both deposit on
> work
> orders and on direct sales that are not work orders. We require a 100%
> deposit (of a single tender type) on work orders. I then need to break
> this
> deposit down by department, catagory and item. Then I must add that to
> the
> same break down for direct sales. Thereby getting a total of all moneys
> received during a specified period for the store across all registers.
>
> So basically I am trying to figure out the data structure and
> organization
> of the transaction/order data and how they are related.
>
> While doing this I have found, in our existing data, 11 work orders from
> last year that were invoiced twice on seperate registers using the same
> single deposit as the tender. One of those 11 sales transactions
> appears to
> have occured at exactly the same time on two different registers. The
> others
> are all within minutes/seconds of each other. I have looked in the
> journal
> batches to verify this and journaled receipts were found in their
> respective
> batches.
>
> How is this possible? My assumption (love that word!) is that a work
> order
> can only be filled once and that a deposit on a work order can also only
> be
> used once during the sales transaction tending process. Can multiple
> people
> be working on processing the work order at the same time? If so,
> shouldn't
> there be something in place to prevent this from happening?
>
> Our situation is that work orders get filled in groups. Work orders X
> thru
> Y are "picked" and prepared for shipping at the same time. At that
> point it
> is reported back to the office that they have been picked and are ready
> to be
> invoiced. At that point two people on different registers start recall
> the
> work orders and generate the respective invoice. Is it possible that
> both
> people got "in sync" with each other while processing? Is it possible
> that
> the system allows for the commital of the invoice without "knowing" that
> someone else is also process the invoice at that time? Shouldn't the
> system
> check the current status of a workorder prior to the commital of the
> invioce?
>
> Did we just stumble in to a big logic hole?
>
> Any info would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Terry
>