Re: At the end of my teather with LSMB

[Luke <..hidden..>]

On Wed, 28 May 2008, ..hidden.. wrote:

> Quoting Chris Travers <..hidden..>:
> 
> > Now for midsize businesses entering lots of invoices, this may not be
> > reasonable.  Basically it means you are extremely limited in terms of
> > scalability, and after you have a few people in your AR department,
> > they end up waiting on eachothers' transactions.  Needless to say, I
> > don't see this as a good thing.
> 
> ISTR that JD Edwards provided guaranteed consecutive numbering, (but  
> it's a long time since worked with JD Edwards). That software was  
> designed for high-volume transaction processing.  How did they do it?

I don't know, but one method we could look at, is not providing invoice 
numbers for un-posted invoices.

Require printing, emailing, etc., to be done *after* the fact of invoice 
generation and postal, not prior to posting.
That, combined with the non-editable invoice number field we have been 
talking about, would eliminate this concern completely, I do believe.
Of course, for some people it will raise a whole set of new concerns, but 
some times that can not be helped when you're trying to solve for the 
majority.

Perhaps make "print" and "email" into checkboxes on the main invoice form.  
Once posting happens, the program carries you through printing and 
emailing processes.  Sort of an "print when done, email when done" idea.
They would also need defaults to specify their initial states--E.G. an 
internet business may rarely print, but always email; and a shipping 
business may always do both.

Luke