WMS warehouse document number series

LibertyMountain

Does anyone know the logic, or the best-practice argument, for using the same number series for warehouse receipts and posted warehouse receipts? Same goes for warehouse shipments and posted warehouse shipments?

This is not true for picks and registered picks. Picks have a number sequence different than registered picks. (same for movements/registered movements and putaways/registered putaways).

Oracle suggests the same numbering sequence for receipts and posted receipts as well (at least in 11.5.8 it did). This is a source of confusion for our users. #-o And training isn't helping. So I'm considering giving Posted Whse. Receipts, and Posted Whse. shipmets, each their own unique number series.

Thoughts?

raj2000be

Hi,

Typically when you have the same number series code setup for sales invoices and posted sales invoices, NAV will use the same number for both of them i.e. sales invoice and posted sales invoice. If the same logic applies to your scenario, you may want to try having the same number series setup on both the wahehouse shipment and posted warehouse shipment. I've used this with sales invoices, but not with the warehouse shipments. So try this and it may very well do the trick.

Cheers
Raj

LibertyMountain

The sales invoice logic and posted sales invoice logic of assigning numbers would actually be fantastic. But the warehouse documents logic doesn't work this way:

- When a PO comes in, you create a Warehouse Receipt (e.g. WR1).
- When you post the Warehouse Receipt, the posted document no. is WR2 (not WR1). It doesn't "reserve" WR1 to be used as the posted document no. like it does with the accounting documents.

So the users see a posted whse. receipt with "No." = 'WR2' & "Warehouse Receipt No." = 'WR1'. And they get lost. So there's more going on here with warehouse documents than goes on with accounting documents.

Furthermore, all the foreign key history through the warehouse tables references the posted receipt (e.g. 'WR2' rather than the original receipt no. 'WR1'), which again is a source of confusion. They understand that they "created and posted" WR1 for PO XYZ. So why is all the history related to WR2? (This BTW I am not trying to fix. I realize trying to fix that would be fruitless and a waste of time). But I feel like a different numbering sequence would help them keep things straight in their minds so that they understand what is a posted whse. receipt vs. a warehouse receipt.

What's going on with the numbering sequence is akin to using the same numbering sequence for PO's and posted purchase receipts (or PO's and Posted purchase invoices). Nobody would do that would they? or do some people do that?

Alex_Chow

It'll work if you do not allow back order on warehouse shipment and receipts. Basically 1 shipment = 1 posting.

FDickschat

Whse Rcpt (WR) <-> Posted Whse Rcpt (PWR) = 1:N (same for Shipments)

As the posting routine posts per source document it is easily possible that the first doc posts fine but the second brings an error which results in more than 1 PWR per WR.

Of course you could use the same number series but it does NOT mean that the PWR gets the same number as WR, it will just get another number from the number series.

I always recommend the customer to use different number series to make it more transparent for the end user.

To have a better overview I had once created a new table which holds all open AND posted Whse Shpts (just a few fields) with an option field (open,posted) and both the WhseShptNo and the PostedWhseShptNo. From this window the user can easily filter for his knows number (WhseShptNo) and find all related docs irregardless of whether they have been posted or not.

LibertyMountain

Thanks Frank. I will go with your suggestion and introduce a new number series for Posted Whse. Receipts, and a new one for Posted Whse. Shipments.