Cybertrax 2.1 Client (Q and A)

From UG

Alex 20:09, 19 June 2010 (EDT)

I discovered number of new questions to be addressed.

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?)

Of course simplest answer: b,c,d,e – visible for all. If we want to differentiate then I suggest not to hard code and define this through admin.

Next question is: If they are 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)

Part B) 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

Part C) existing Authorization process

We have authorization process for Client/internal now. Are we going to keep both it or replace it by new?

Part D) 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

Part E) #One_user_with_multiple_roles requirement

Now I feel that it might be easier/faster to code (and of course maintain/grow code) with option 2 (see below).

Dev team will get a better feel for this next week.

Quote from http://mantis.jaguarfreight.com/wiki/Cybertrax_2.1_Client_(requirements)#One_user_with_multiple_roles  :

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

One user with multiple roles

[a] It is possible for one person to have more than one "user role". Example: Shipper / Planner, Shipper / Client; Shipper / Planner / Client; etc.

[b] There are two different approaches to interface in this case:

§ option 1) show separate shipments lists depending on role

§ option 2) show one shipments list and provide additional filters that would allow user to show:

§ all shipments

§ only shipments user would see in "shipper role"

§ only shipments user would see in "planner role"

§ only shipments user would see in "client role"

Alex 19:31, 19 June 2010 (EDT)

1] Do we need to limit # of lines on internal to 1 line? (blocking adding lines)

2] Should jag users be able to edit commod table created by shipper at all?

Original

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

A: 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.

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

A: 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

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

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)

• Q: "EM" and "Planner" - same thing?

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

• Q: Why 10? Why not make it flexible?

A:This was not a phase 1 requirement. It will be further discussed for phase 2.

• Q: Any requirement for release date?

A: ASAP