Thanks for your response, 3) is reasonable for us. We’ve also found that you need to assign vendors to companies before you can see them, so this is an extra fail safe. Appreciated!
Thank you both for your response. Prabhath, in the second link, there is a link to User documentation which gives a 404. Can you point me to an updated link where I can get this documentation? You can test it for yourself here:Lobby (End User documentation)
Hi Bjorn, thanks for continuing to contribute to this. Justin and I agree that these suggestions would technically work. The challenge is that none of them are remotely scalable because they require manual interventions each time. We have lots of orders coming in, trying to schedule large factories, and most workcenters have multiple resources. So, the workarounds suggested might be palatable for the very smallest of our divisions, but definitely can’t work for larger, more complex ones. Can you envision any way to reasonably automate these tasks? What are other APB customers doing? Surely most APB customers must run into these limitations and be in the same state we are? We are looking at external scheduling tools, but that’s not ideal and can be very expensive as well.
Bjorn, I asked Justin to respond, he’s our APB expert, we work together, if that wasn’t obvious. Thanks for your reply...hopefully you have some additional ideas.
Hi Chanaka,We have the same issue and are working with Clicklearn on this. Short answer is it’s not directly supported, but we are working with them on some potential workarounds. If we come up with anything useful, I’ll share it. I’m also reporting this up to IFS executive as a gap.Warren
Thanks Thom, that sounds like a possible solution! We’re going to try it out with our consultants. Really appreciate the response. To answer your question, no, site B being supplied by A is only one of the possibilities, it’s just the only one so far that needs a “markup” charged to. So we’ll likely have to pursue the custom event.
First off, let me say that clearly Aurena is the future, and when it’s working properly and is feature complete, it will be excellent. I am a year into a large, complex implementation of IFS, first sites going live in summer. We decided when we started to embrace Aurena, rather than start with IE and then upgrade to a brand new interface that’s significantly different, too much change for my organization. If I knew then what I know now, I would not have made that choice. The current production version of Aurena (not IFS Cloud that is releasing in the next week or so) has many bugs, and is not feature complete. Lots of features you are used to in IE are not yet ported, and in particular many administrative tools you still have to use IE. You will also find that consultants are not very familiar with IE and themselves are surprised by the missing functionality and not well informed, they are discovering it with you. There is also no training documentation available and the integrated
Already have an account? Login
No account yet? Create an account
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
Sorry, we're still checking this file's contents to make sure it's safe to download. Please try again in a few minutes.
Sorry, our virus scanner detected that this file isn't safe to download.
