Comments

  • 1-10 of 10
  • John Tolmachoff

    Yeah I did.  It this is a part of the nucleus of the solution.  We'll expanded the same concept to all the other transactions.  The real effort is the reporting/visibility layer that needs to sit on top of this.  Right now it will purely provide visibility and notifications.  In the future we'd like to add the ability to drill back to the source transaction or form to start a new transaction.  

    Regards

    JT

  • John Tolmachoff

    Can you clarify this point?  What is the proposed solution when both Inventory Management Cloud (IMC) and WMS Cloud (WMSC)?  If on the shelf inventory is being managed via totes, LPN's, etc. would these totes not need to be reflected in BOTH IMC and WMSC?  When a tote/LPN is moved, all the piece parts within the tote/LPN have to be moved together.  The scan may start in WMSC, but the transaction needs to be mirrored in IMC.  Especially if there is any type of nested serialization rolling up to the single scan. 

    Another consideration is there may be inventory organizations modeled in IMC which will NOT also require WMSC.  They do not need the additional capabilities enabled by WMSC.  These tote's/LPN's need to be transactable across the full solution.  Across every inventory organization.  

    One of many industry examples is in Utilities.  They may not require the capabilities of a WMS, but they heavily use prepackaged LPN's/Kits for basic electric or service installations.  The crew will grab as many kits as needed.  The consideration is all these parts need to be trackable individually.  They may pull a part from one kit to use in another kit.  Maybe the part was damaged or corrupted.   Or may provide a part to another crew.  Using MFG to kit these is not the right solution.  

    Point being, LPN's/Totes/non-MFG Kits are still required, regardless of WMS.  

    Thank you

  • John Tolmachoff

    Suman - Thank you.  If this changes, please let me know.  In the meantime, I will be working with my client on crafting a solution/workaround for this.  If I can get their agreement, we will share a draft.  

    A bit of background driving this request.  They are a capital intensive business who has projects scaling from larger, requiring Primavera, to smaller one's, where the client is looking to manage certain elements of the procurement organization scheduling.  For example, when to start a sourcing negotiation, contracting, etc.  Exactly that supported through EBS Project Procurement.  I also have other clients with this same need.  

    Regards, JT

  • John Tolmachoff

    This is controlled within PPM, not Self Service Procurement.  Their are Transactional Controls which can be applied to manage the Projects, Tasks, Expenditure Types usable.  In general the rule can be inclusive or exclusive, but doing a large mix between the two can be a challenge.  Specific people cannot be restricted.  this is addressed by their Job/Position, which would be enabled or restricted on the Task.  

  • John Tolmachoff

    I have about 4 Cloud ERP clients with this need.  Essentially the same capability as was available in EBS.  One client is further along than the others and we are packaging up material to review with Prod Development. 

    To be clear, this not being supported is a HUGE gap.  Every client has this whether they are buying a IT or hard asset.  Modeling these as PO lines is not sustainable or reportable.

  • John Tolmachoff

    Has there any further discussions on adding this to the Procurement Roadmap?  The above solution can work, in limited cased when the PO line being purchased is for services, but not for inventory.  Receiving needs to be considered.  One cannot receive half of single unit of inventory. 

    The above solution also does not consider the deliverables being tied to the milestone.  Modeling PO lines to address BOTH services and their supporting deliverable could result in 1000's of PO lines for a construction project.  

  • John Tolmachoff

    Is this for the Cloud or EBS?  Regardless, the integration does not support synchronization of bi-directional changes.  There is no way to know which application is pushing the right change.  Either Oracle or MSP needs to be the master.  If the Project was created in Oracle, then all changes can only be made in Oracle.  MSP becomes a report application.  Plus the views/filters in MSP are better. If the Project was created in MSP, then MSP is the master and all changes are to be made in MSP.  

  • John Tolmachoff

    Adding in my experience.  Whether in EBS or Cloud ERP PPM, at its core, PPM is always a Project Accounting capability first and foremost. When integrating Primavera or any other non-ERP Project Scheduling (MSP, etc) the only WBS's/Task's that should be loaded into PPM are those driving cost collections and/or billing events.  Any financial events.  The large majority of WBS's are proj management driven and have zero financial impact, and should never be in the ERP. 

    Cloud PPM does not have this yet and not sure if it is on the roadmap.  In EBS the Proj Mgmt module name was changed to Project Controls when the Cost Breakdown Structure was added.  The CBS is the level of detail needed from Primvera, not the full WBS list.  

  • John Tolmachoff

    Give this is about 1.5 years old, has there been any changes the direction of the Ledger to BU relationship?  I am in a situation looking for the same solution, where we will have more than one ledger, driven by multiple countries.  We are looking for the procurement shared service.  

     

    Regards

    JT

  • John Tolmachoff

    Give this is about 1.5 years old, has there been any changes the direction of the Ledger to BU relationship?  I am in a situation looking for the same solution, where we will have more than one ledger, driven by multiple countries.  We are looking for the procurement shared service.  

     

    Regards

    JT