Any WMS users out there?

I’m looking to make contact with someone out there that uses the 3.6/3.7 version of warehouse management. We are using the 2.6 AD version and want to be sure there aren’t any problems with the new release. We use RF and multiple units of measure for an item. In our current situation, we have a number of headaches and “quirks.” We’re hoping we can make these go away with the current release. Any input would be helpful…even if it’s “Stay Away!” or “Don’t Do It!” [;)] Thanks in advance

If you are using transfer orders, serial & lot number : don’t use 360. The 370 version is much better.

The 3.70 product, while vastly improved from v3.10 and v3.60, suffers from many quality issues that are set to be corrected in the next 90 days as a HotFix/Improvement to the code. During a recent v3.70 implemementation with ADCS, the following primary problems were noted: 1. ADCS Kills NAS with Forms (i.e., activities driven by ADCS can often cause the NAS to display an Error/Warning form, killing NAS) 2. The Sorting Method specified during Pick/Put Away/Movements does not flow to ADCS. 3. When scrolling through ADCS records, every other record is not updatable (!) 4. ADCS will hang (actually, NAS hangs) when bin cubage/weight/quantity is exceeded. 5. ADCS manual entry of negative quantities are allowed, triggering an error message that kills NAS 6. ADCS will hang with a bin flagged as “Block Movement” ALL and quantity is increased will cause a hang requiring restart of the NCSS (Navision Communication System Service) 7. etc., etc., etc. I have pushed the issue to the head of Navision development and have been told (by our local NTR) that fixes in the form of a significant HotFix should be available by Jan/Feb '04. I would therefore recommend extreme caution if you are planning to implement prior to the release of the HotFix/Improvement. - David Hutchinson

Seems to be ADCS related. Maybe speetz is not looking for ADCS ?

Thanks a lot. Actually we will be using ADCS. We have similar “hang” issues with the RF system in 2.6. Although I realize 2.6 and 3.6/3.7 have little in common in that area, I’m glad to hear you are getting them addressed. Thankfully an upgrade for us will be in the March/April time period. Additionally, I glad to hear no problems in the area of pick ticket generation. This is where we are having most of our problems. I’m curious David, did this customer have multiple units of measure for the same item?

Has anyone confirmed that this fix has been made available???

The problem: (Nav 3.6) Company has only one warehouse/location, activity is only buy/sell of merchandise, but management desires that every sales agent to be sort of an indepenndent unit (management want to track every sales agent: purchases, order, stocks, sales, reservations, inventory) so items purchased by one S.A. to appear available for sale to a certain client to respective user (also reports should be sales agent filtered (other agents can see availability from others but can’t sale but their own stock except case of transfer) altough warehouse functionality should also be at company level and / user level. I don’t now what to use (dimensions, purchaser code, locations for every S.A. etc) Anyway i don’t if I made myself clear. Thanks

We are using GB version of WMS, release 3.70 hotfix 15. I’m not sure how this relates to releases in the US. We use the product for receiving and despatching at the moment. We plan to move to ADCS during May and June, planned go-live in July. Our experience with WMS at the moment is: simplistic pick and put-away rules; simplistic processing of pick/despatch; complicated route to achieve simple goals. Overall it’s working, with one or two issues of use and abuse. I’m keen to keep in contact to share problems / solutions on this application.

After implementing 2 WHM function for Navision 3.7, both of these clients requested to have it taken out afterwards. The reason is that there are just too many steps involved in shipping and receiving. This problem exponentiates when you have to ship thousands of packages each day. For most cases, just implementing Bin locations in WHM is more than enough for inventory tracking purposes.

Alex, I don’t think there is any client out there that hasn’t modified the WHM areas within Navision. It’s not really practical out of the box…but neither was it meant to be used out of the box. Realistically, it is nice to have all the basic processes detailed step by step throughout the system. It’d be a great deal harder to replicate customer processes if you had to go the other way around and create more detailed processes out of a generically vague one. We as a rule tend to automate many of the processes for clients, but as far as specifically what we automate differs from client to client. I know this digresses from the original gist of the topic, but I’m hoping we get some news as to a generic Intermec solution in the near future as is being touted.

Bill, I don’t disagree with you. However, at this point of the product development for WHM, I think the best and the most efficient solution for MOST cases is a combination of using Bin Locations and some manual logging. Navision standard WHM won’t be usable unless heavily modified so the warehouse staff can process their work efficiently and effectively. I’m not bashing Navision or anything, I’m just saying the cost vs benefits of implementing the whole thing is just too high on the cost side.

Alex, Not knowing the specific instances that you’ve implemented the solution in, I can’t deny your analysis on Navision WMS. The problem is that I’m always found that it really depends on what specific functionality you make manual. If we’re talking about cycle counts or inventory adjustments then I concur with you. The problem of making picking/putaway, cycle counting, receiving, and shipping areas all manual is simply an issue of the ever prevalent bottleneck. I’ve always found warehouse users somewhat remedial in their computer skills and have always ended up with a line at the computer waiting on individuals to finish inputting the information into the system. Sure adding additional terminals helped, but the goal I’ve always had is to try and let the warehouse workers do warehouse things versus forcing them to learn a new system. Sure, their are always adjustments for them and things they’ll need to learn, but my approach has been to limit this. While adding terminals helped…probably as cost efficient as anything…really trying to analyze what specific processes could be simplified also made a difference. For example if the client picks by order and has same day picking processes in place, have the system automatically create a shipment and pick doc at the time the order is released. To build on this, I have had customers that didn’t care about having a separate shipping process…they wanted the registering of the pick doc to also ship and then invoice the order. This cut down on manual steps, but also opened them up to other issues which we can all imagine. I just think that there is still so much potential in the product that from an operational standpoint the MBS developers and more importantly the product managers have really dropped the ball on here. It’s been 4 years since the introduction of warehousing functionality into Navision and since the Attain combination of Mfg and NAD we’re still trying to regain much of the functionality that was there. NAD made some nice attempts to handle advanced picking routines, but where is that? Where is a reservation / allocation of product process that can actually work? Where is a real “Navision” solution that can provide a RF solution out of the box? Again pet peeves of mine and certainly fantastic opportunities for someone out there. But I guess I’m a lone voice in seeing these as issues. Maybe it’s because I’m not the accounting type. I’ve always been a hardcore inventory management type. Sorry to digress…

Bill, Can’t agree with you more.

Just an FYI… I received some information that a fairly reputable company is going to release an add-on to ADCS. It will add new features/functions to the product. Additionally, for those lucky enough to have purchased some of their other shipping related add-ons, there will be some workflow integration between the WMS and their other shipping add-ons. I have very limited details at this point but I do know that this product (if its stable) will solve the bluk of my ADCS issues. It’s pretty much a certainty we will aquire this add-on and I’ll keep you all posted. [;)]

CBC, I assume you are talking to Dale? I know he and a couple of old internal Navision advocates at MBS went and spent some significant time with Intermec a few months back in an effort to create a “boxed” solution. I’ve not heard any time frame thought on this.

Bill, I’m trying to get some particulars…when I do I’ll let you know. What I do know is that it’s an add-on to ADCS and not a separate product. So I don’t think it will be an vendor specific solution as far as the equipment goes (maybe some lessons were learned?). Also, it will have a function similar to “Dynamic Put-Away” in 2.6 RF which makes me very happy - we live on that feature. I was given a date, but I don’t know how firm it is. For me it’s important because its close to our planned upgrade date for 3.7.