Re: Purchase Orders for Utilities, etc.

[Derek Neighbors]

Peter Sullivan said:
> Actually, there is a good case for making people raise Purchase
> Orders (either call-off/blanket POs in advance, or specific POs
> retrospectively) even for things like utilities and rent. It has
> nothing to do with the system per se, but reflects the fact that
> systems get used by people (i.e. fallible human beings).

I tend to agree its a decent business rule, but like all business rules
the business should design them.  I think its safe to say there needs to
be some way to validate invoices to PO's and whether people choose to use
it to help enforce good policy is up to them.

> This is not just a theoretical problem. I spent quite a bit of
> time with at least two clients of my last employer trying to
> unpick this, and one of them eventually had to write off all
> outstanding POs more than six months old, on the grounds that
> they "must have been delivered, but the invoice input wrong."
> And when we were doing site visits for the ERP system we are
> implementing at my current job, one of our reference sites
> had exactly the same problem. (I deliberately haven't named
> either system, as it's not the fault of either system.)

I like solving problems like this as they become 'selling features'. ;)

> The other alternative, I suppose, is to put some intelligence
> into the system, so that each account code within General
> Ledger has a flag on it that says whether a PO is required
> for AP invoices to that code. If the flag was set, which
> should probably be the default, the system would refuse to
> allow a direct-input AP invoice to cost there, but would
> require it to be matched to a PO instead. If the flag was
> not set (for example, on Payroll, Utilities and Rents codes)
> then direct input AP invoices would be OK. Having said this,
> I am not aware of any system that does this as of time of
> writing, so I wonder if there is an obvious flaw with this
> that I've not spotted.

I agree we need to approach this sort of way (intelligence in the system),
but I strongly urge that GNUe-SB will likely not have this as high
priority in early releases.  It very well could be something reserved for
GNUe Proper.

-Derek
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> * My apologies to Geoffrey Boycott (now *there's* a phrase I
> never thought I'd type) for (ab)using his cricket-related
> metaphor.
> --
> Peter Sullivan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnue mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnue