[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl-dev] Fwd: Re: [ubl-comment] Trying to map my processes to the Ordering process (5.3.3.4.1) in the Draft 2.2 pdf.
David, I would treat the “order” that is coming from the agronomist (new word for me) as an UBL “OrderResponse”. So it is a result
of a “order” that you made when you contracted them to create a plan for you. (and that is a separate order I assume in your procurement system?) In their systems they already have an “Order” for you in the books when they send it to you, so it is a response that
you can use to create the equivalent “order” in your procurement system with your own order reference and a link to their order reference. That they created the order them self’s does not matter. Even if you would have entered all the details first into your
procurement system and then send out an UBL order to them, they would have registered that order and send you a “OrderResponse” also (order confirmation, maybe some added details etc) That the first exchange of data was not done via UBL documents does not mean subsequent exchanges can not be done via
UBL documents. The bigger question here would be: Can your agronomist create that UBL OrderResponse document towards you? Kees D Van: David Goodenough [mailto:david.goodenough@broadwellmanor.co.uk]
As per suggestion below I am forwarding this to ubl-dev. But I have to say that since I subscribed nine days ago, ubl-dev has been entirely quiet.
David
Hi David
May I suggest you ask your question to the ubl-dev mailing list to see if other UBL users have similar processes and how they may have implemented them? There’s no guarantee that you’ll find an
answer. The use case you describe seems rather narrow - to me at least. But you would reach a wider audience than here on the comment list.
Best regards,
Kenneth
From:
David Goodenough <david.goodenough@broadwellmanor.co.uk>
Well according to Wikipedia (and yes I should not believe everything I read there) a Blanket Order requires a forecast,
and we do not forecast even the total amount of seed/chemical we will use in a year, let alone which seed/chemicals.
Looking at the Order object there is no reason why the supplier can not be the origin, as the buyer and supplier are
specified not the sender and receiver. I was really trying to think through the proper process, and to find out whether others had similar arrangements with suppliers that could make a common process.
All the narrative in 5.3.3.4.1 (which I understand is only illustrative) suggests a buyer to supplier flow for the
Orders. If we did not want an item we would simply ask them to collect it and a credit note would follow, and we never confirm an Order, simply receive it. Another way to look at it would I suppose be that this is a pro-forma Order, and that the response would
be a Purchase Order but that introduces an extra step absent from the paper analog, but that is why I am looking for other similar examples of such supplier generated orders to find common patterns.
If could also be regarded as an example of Vendor Managed Inventory, but only the initial delivery part. But that
process seems to jump straight to the delivery note stage with no Order. In this case, as I suppose we have here, the Order is treated as an internal document for the supplier, and we are just copied in on it for reference.
BTW, where is UN CL 1001 defined? It is not one of the genericode files in the 2.2, and google only comes up with
dangerous goods classifications (UN1001 being "Acetylene,
dissolved"). A while ago I was pointed at some genericode files from 2.0 and 2.1, but these were mainly empty place holders and I can not find this list in there (but I may have missed it).
David
On Tuesday, 21 November 2017 22:40:04 GMT JAVEST by Roberto Cisternino wrote:
Hello David,
We, like many farms, contract an agronomist to provide us with advice and guidance on the seeds and chemicals that we put on our fields. He, or rather his company, also supply many of those seeds
and chemicals. The process runs something like this:-
1) He looks at the growing crops (and our plans for them, and soil maps and last year's yield maps and advice he is getting internally on disease pressure) and comes up with a Plan. This plan involves
us doing something to the land and (usually) some chemicals.
2) The plan is turned into two things, a set of tasks for our tractor drivers to perform (usually in the form of an ISOBUS-XML file or its proprietary equivalent) and an Order for chemicals.
3) He passes the Order to us (I suppose this is the Order equivalent of a Self Billed Invoice) and the chemicals are dispatched to us.
4) A Delivery note is delivered along with the chemicals
5) If we decide not to do something - the weather might change and we can not get onto the land to do it in time, some of the chemicals might be returned and they will issue a Collection note.
6) An invoice is issued and from there on all is as one would expect.
The question is how to map the Order from step 3 onto UBL. I suppose it could be represented as a Quotation that we would then have to turn around into an Order and send to them, but their processes
assume the Order is placed immediately when they generate it. Their returns policy, which is quick and efficient, makes it work where otherwise it might be open to miss-use. I suppose the possible conclusion might be that we need (and obviously this could
not be a 2.2 issue it would have to wait for 2.3) a SelfGeneratedOrder,
or the rules and the flow diagram in 5.3.3.4.1 for an Order need to be extended to say that either end can generate it, but presumably if generated by the vendor then it should at least be accepted
by the buyer before being "official".
As it happens the Order arrives in our arable management system electronically
but in a totally proprietary form, and we then can export it in an XML form
to our accounting system.
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]