Cybertrax 2.1 Client (Q and A)

From UG

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(→New Questions)
Line 12: Line 12:
-
== New Questions ==
+
== New Unanswered Questions and Discussion ==
-
 
+
-
 
+
-
=== Need visibility defined per user type, MOT, client, office, internal user group, etc ===
+
-
 
+
-
Part A) new fields: visibility, Read/Write Access must be defined for each type of user, MOT, etc;
+
-
 
+
-
We have significant number of new CT fields introduced: PO Issued by, Piece price, Approved For Date, etc
+
-
 
+
-
Important questions for each field:
+
-
 
+
-
Are they visible? This must be defined separately for:
+
-
 
+
-
* a] each of 4 types of users: jaguar/internal, shipper, planner, client
+
-
 
+
-
* b] each MOT: air, ocean, etc.
+
-
 
+
-
* c] each Client Company? (show them for EA Arden Domestic only?)
+
-
 
+
-
* d] each Office? ? (show them for NY only?)
+
-
 
+
-
* e] each Jag operator/group? ? (show them only for operators dealing with EA Arden Domestic?)
+
-
 
+
-
'''Answer:'''
+
-
 
+
-
* a)
+
-
** client - do not change functionality
+
-
** shipper/planner/jaguar - may see all NEW fields
+
-
* b,c,d,e – visible for any value for now
+
-
 
+
-
=== Need read or write defined per user type, different phases in the lifetime of the shipment ===
+
-
 
+
-
Next question is: If new field is visible then are they open for read or also write? Must be defined separately for:
+
-
 
+
-
* a] each of 4 types of users: jaguar/internal, shipper, planner, client
+
-
 
+
-
* b] different phases in the lifetime of the shipment (example: commodity info may not be changed after Ct is approved)
+
-
 
+
-
Some of this already defined, but not all – it is a matrix: (option a) X (option b)
+
-
 
+
-
'''Answer:'''
+
-
* a)
+
-
** client - do not change functionality
+
-
** jaguar - can edit all fields (for now)
+
-
** planner - can only edit its own fields as defined in Requirements
+
-
** shipper - can only edit its own fields
+
-
 
+
=== Some new fields seem to duplicate existing ===
=== Some new fields seem to duplicate existing ===
Line 92: Line 46:
   
   
-
 
We have to make a decision if we want to:
We have to make a decision if we want to:
-
 
Option a) “discontinue” some of the old fields (then we must analyse where on pdfs/reports, etc we used them and delete or archive)
Option a) “discontinue” some of the old fields (then we must analyse where on pdfs/reports, etc we used them and delete or archive)
Line 104: Line 56:
'''Answer:'''
'''Answer:'''
-
see "(data dictionary)"
+
???
-
 
+
-
=== Existing Authorization process seems to overlap with new ===
+
-
 
+
-
We have authorization process for Client/internal now. Are we going to keep both it or replace it by new?
+
-
 
+
-
'''Answer:'''
+
-
Keep both
+
-
 
+
-
 
+
-
=== Approval Report ===
+
-
 
+
-
 
+
-
1)      it needs to be defined in details
+
-
 
+
-
2)      We already have Approval report defined. Options:
+
-
 
+
-
a)      Change existing
+
-
 
+
-
b)      Keep old  but then we need another name for new report
+
-
 
+
-
 
+
-
 
+
-
 
+
-
=== Do we need to limit # of lines on internal to 1 line? (blocking adding lines) ===
+
-
 
+
-
'''Answer:'''
+
-
Yes
+
-
 
+
-
=== Should jag users be able to edit commod table created by shipper at all? ===
+
-
 
+
-
'''Answer:'''
+
-
Yes
+
== Answered Questions ==
== Answered Questions ==

Revision as of 22:45, 16 July 2010


Contents

How to use this doc

Question could be posted here.

Add wiki signature, forward link to someone you think might answer.

Discussion could be posted here.

If answer is final then spec must be updated and question marked as answered.(how?)


New Unanswered Questions and Discussion

Some new fields seem to duplicate existing

New fields

- Authorization status,

- Approved For Date,

- Approved By

- “Approved On

- etc


seem to serve same purpose as existing:


- Authorized By,

- Authorized MOT (could be hold),

- Authorization Method,

- On Customer Hold

- Pending Approval


We have to make a decision if we want to:


Option a) “discontinue” some of the old fields (then we must analyse where on pdfs/reports, etc we used them and delete or archive)

Option b) re-use some of the old fields (and potentially rename)

Option c) keep all as is but define better the difference and purpose

Answer: ???

Answered Questions

How to avoid situation when planners ignore some new shipments for a long time?

Answer: Currently this is not required for phase 1 and will be addressed for possibly phase 2. Although, suggestion was given such as auto approve or auto reject, based upon a certain amount of time. Yet this is something that would need to be further discussed and defined by Elizabeth Arden.

When Jag operator may see or "start to move" CT?

Answer: Once a record is approved by a planner or an E.M, that shipment will then show on the live tab for both the internal & client applications

What additional read-only fields edited by Jag oper Shipper will see?

Answer:

A: Trucker, Estimated Pick up date, Actual Pick up date, Estimated Delivery date, Actual Delivery date, Approved (with name of person who approved, including the date & time), Hold (with name of person who placed on hold, including the date & time), Rejected (with name of person who rejected it, including the date & time)

EM and Planner - same thing?

Answer:

A:No, not the same thing, but they are similar. They play the same role in the approval process.

Any requirement for release date?

Answer:

A: ASAP, ideally just several weeks
Retrieved from "https://wiki.jaguarfreight.com/Cybertrax_2.1_Client_(Q_and_A)"
Personal tools