Re: Proposed financial schema for financial info

[Chris Travers <..hidden..>]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Erik Huelsmann <..hidden..> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> In the schema you sent, you write that you intend to use one of the
> new links in the invoice table to get the PONumber field as it is
> currently available in the AR table. The links you're referring to are
> the "previous document" (sales order, sales request, etc) links. Let
> me describe my use-case where I think this linking system won't work
> for me.
>
> (Note that I'm involved in multiple businesses; the use-case below is
> a use-case from my self-employment. I'm not currently using LSMB to
> create invoices for that business, but I'm using the requirements as a
> showcase.)
>
> Because I have relatively few contracts (8 or 10 per year) in my
> self-employment business, I'm not creating sales orders for these
> contracts. I'm just creating the invoices directly, using my hours
> registrations and whatever additional requirements my customers have.
>
> One of my customers requires me to use *their* PO number to be on the
> invoice. They use it to link the digital and physical information
> flows: the physical invoice never actually reaches my contacts -
> instead it's being processed by a central processing office. Without
> that number, they can't link the invoice to the right file. Without
> that number, I won't be paid.

Ok, so question for everyone:  Should the PO number field be on the
header or the invoice line item?  I am thinking for now just to add it
to the header (since that is the way it's done right now) because it
is easier to go the to the other from here if we need to.

But that still does bring up the question:  Should client PO's map at
most 1:1 to invoices? or should we allow an invoice to invoice
delivery of goods and services off multiple PO's?  If in doubt, I
think we should keep the current behavior for now while we evaluate,
but want to get feedback.....

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers