Login
Register
Search
Home
Forums
Jobs
LawsonGuru
LawsonGuru Letter
LawsonGuru Blog
Worthwhile Reading
Infor Lawson News Feed
Store
Store FAQs
About
Forums
Supply Chain Management
Lawson S3 Supply Chain
Different UOM being submitted than what shows in IC11
Home
Forums
Jobs
LawsonGuru
LawsonGuru Letter
LawsonGuru Blog
Worthwhile Reading
Infor Lawson News Feed
Store
Store FAQs
About
Who's On?
Membership:
Latest:
LynneB
Past 24 Hours:
2
Prev. 24 Hours:
1
Overall:
5123
People Online:
Visitors:
214
Members:
0
Total:
214
Online Now:
New Topics
Lawson S3 Financials
PO Matched Dollars and Matched Quantity
5/10/2024 6:51 PM
Can anyone share the Lawson calculation to determi
S3 Customization/Development
COBOL CSV file
5/10/2024 2:36 PM
We have a custom Cobol program ZU200 that creates
S3 Systems Administration
Using MFA for Lawson S3 Access
5/8/2024 1:23 PM
Does anyone use Multi Factor Authentication when u
Lawson Landmark
Executing IPA from PR160
5/3/2024 2:46 PM
We're facing a situation where we need to upda
IPA/ProcessFlow
Executing IPA from PR160
5/3/2024 2:46 PM
We're facing a situation where we need to upda
S3 Customization/Development
Cobol - Extract Current Time
4/24/2024 7:21 PM
How do you extract just the Current System Time in
Lawson Landmark
LPL INSTR Functions
4/5/2024 8:32 PM
I'm writing a simple report using the Create R
Infor SCM
Translating 856 to get the ~ REF^CN^ field
4/3/2024 8:24 PM
We are trying to get the tracking number which is
IPA/ProcessFlow
Sample XML file create Flow
4/3/2024 3:43 PM
Hello everyone, I am new to creating XML files
Lawson S3 HR/Payroll/Benefits
bn105 error message
3/26/2024 6:40 PM
I need to change some of the set ups in our Life I
Top Forum Posters
Name
Points
Greg Moeller
4184
David Williams
3349
JonA
3288
Kat V
2984
Woozy
1973
Jimmy Chiu
1883
Kwane McNeal
1437
Ragu Raghavan
1357
Roger French
1311
mark.cook
1244
Forums
Unanswered
Active Topics
Most Liked
Most Replies
Search Forums
Search
Advanced Search
Topics
Posts
Prev
Next
Forums
Lawson S3 Supply Chain
Different UOM being submitted than what shows in IC11
Sort:
Oldest First
Most Recent First
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Author
Messages
Bev Edwards
Veteran Member
Posts: 366
7/16/2014 3:20 PM
When I look at the item in PO28, the uom is PK, which is correct, however somehow, BX was submitted on the PO.
We're thinking that since the vendor changed the uom from BX to PK, we perhaps should be changing the IC12.
Does anyone know if that's the correct step to follow in order for the correct UOM to be pulled from PO25.6? Does the IC12 have to have a Trasaction default value in order for the correct uom to be submitted??
I attached some screen shots of this particular item setup.
Bev
Attachments
Doc8.docx
Red
Veteran Member
Posts: 87
7/16/2014 4:01 PM
Bev,
Going back to your previous topic, for a moment, if the UOM on the template was not identified on the Agreement, that would explain why it was dropping to Last Cost.
Back to this topic, you could build both UOMs on the Agreement Line, assuming they are both valid for the supplier/contract. You have the option of using the Default Source UOM on the IC12, but if you select that option ALL ORDERS to the supplier through that IC02/IC12 will need to conform to that UOM. (Inventory/pick ticket requests use the Default Transaction UOM.) If you have templates and Par Locations that order in multiple UOMs, then you would want to leave the Default Source UOM blank. Really, once you asses the set up of your Templates and Par Locations, the real sticking point is any end-users that may order via Express Order/RQ10 or PO20. If the Default Source UOM is set, it will not allow them to release the document until the selected UOM conforms. If you leave the field blanks and the user leaves the field blank, the system will determine what it believes to be the most appropriate UOM through the processes it uses to determine the Agreement association (Agreement Type/Priority/Unit Cost/Agreement Reference). All other things being equal, the system will select the first line/UOM that was entered on the Agreement.
Hope this makes sense.
Red
Bev Edwards
Veteran Member
Posts: 366
7/16/2014 5:14 PM
Hi Red!
The uom was defined, but was originally set to BX. I changed that to EA, however at the time, I was unable to change the From Location for that item from HOSP to LUM on the Line Detail tab in PO15.
I finally did change it from HOSP to LUM, but at the moment, I'm drawing a blank as to how I accomplished this. At any rate, it didn't seem to have an effect as the price is still continuing to default incorrectly. I just sent a post to that topic a few mins ago with an update on what I just discovered.
I'm re-reading your post in a few to wrap my head around what you explained. Sounds like once I understand it, I need to share with my colleague as well.
Thank you!
Bev Edwards
Veteran Member
Posts: 366
7/16/2014 5:42 PM
Red,
Just so I understand (at least one piece), if the IC12 has a Transaction default UOM, an item cannot be set up on multiple agreements with 2 different uom's, correct?
For instance, we have many items that are ordered by the CA, but are also ordered by a LUM uom. CA would reside on one agreement and all LUM items would reside on our O & M LUM agreement. Therefore, all of these particular items would NOT have a Transaction Default uom on the IC12?
Red
Veteran Member
Posts: 87
7/16/2014 8:15 PM
Bev,
Technically, the Default Transaction UOM is intended to govern the UOM that a Requester places on an inventory item. The Default Source UOM determines the UOM on Purchase Orders to the Supplier. That's the theory. So a single item in a single IC Location could issue product out in the EA (Default Transaction UOM) and replenish from the supplier by the CA (Default Source UOM). Early in version 8, when we first tested the functionality, we found that the Transaction UOM would inform the UOM on Purchase Orders if the Source UOM was left blank. It seems to me that this was fixed before we moved forward, but it may still be an issue without the correct patch.
To go back to your question, the base answer is that the Default Transaction UOM should have no bearing on the Agreement. And the Agreement can hold multiple UOMs for an item. We actually campaigned for the Default Source UOM functionality in order to be able to populate agreements with all valid UOMs. For example, one IC Location may order the item only by the CA (as dictated by the Default Source UOM), but a different IC Location wants to order the item in an EA (as set by its Default Source UOM). Both locations could be participants to the same agreement; indeed, it would need to have both UOMs built on it.
Getting clearer?
Red
You are not authorized to post a reply.