Handling the EDI 214 Shipment Status Message

[Chris Kelleher]

Does anybody out there in QAD Land presently receive an ANSI x12 214
Shipment Status Message?

If so, what do you do with it? .....
, to which table do you map the various fields? .....
, which EDI package do you use (i.e. EcBridges, Trinary, other)?
, from which carrier do you receive the 214 message?


I'd appreciate any and all feedback.

Tony Vallin
I.T. Manager
North America
Transitions Optical, Inc.
9251 Belcher Rd
Pinellas Park, FL 32782

(727) 545-0400 x7316
(727) 546-4732 fax

 

[Chris Kelleher]

I'm just guessing here, but wouldn't the 214 map to the receiving table
(prh_hist)? It's basically a pre-receipt from the trucking company as
opposed to an 856 which is from the distribution center, right?
Charlie

 

[Chris Kelleher]

I'm not sure that the prh_hist is where this would go. I think that it
would make more sense for the important/pertinent data found on the 214
Shipment Status Message to either 1) Create a Bill of Lading (BOL) in the
ASN/BOL/Shipper Master (abs_mstr) or 2) update my impcoming shipment (856)
data that has already been loaded into my ASN/BOL/Shipper Master (abs-mstr).

Option 1 would allow ALL of my 214 Shipment Status Message data to have
specific data elements in which to reside. The problems would be tying back
the Bill of Lading (214) data to the related Shipper (856) data records
since there will be a 1:M (one to many) relationship between the 214 and the
856. I'd hate to see this being done in the application.

Option 2 would allow me to update the specific Shipper (856) data records
thereby resolving the 1:M relationship at the time the Bill of Lading (214)
information is being translated/updated. The problems would include a)
Bill of Lading (214) records that reference a Shipper (856) that is Not On
File (what to do with the incoming data?) and b) fields that are used by
both the Bill of Lading (214) and the Shipper (856) would have to be
resolved and a home for each data element would have to be found in the
ASN/BOL/Shipper Master (abs_mstr).

Of course, this is only getting the data into the system, I can't wait
until we begin to try to figure out what to do with it. So, as you can see,
IT AIN'T EASY.

I was hoping that others had come across this same requirement and could
help to act as a "sounding board".

By the Way Charlie, Thanks for your Input! It helps to get the "Juices
Flowing"!

Tony Vallin
I.T. Manager
North America
Transitions Optical, Inc.
9251 Belcher Rd
Pinellas Park, FL 32782

(727) 545-0400 x7316
(727) 546-4732 fax

 

[Chris Kelleher]

I'm not sure that the prh_hist is where this would go. I think that it
would make more sense for the important/pertinent data found on the 214
Shipment Status Message to either 1) Create a Bill of Lading (BOL) in the
ASN/BOL/Shipper Master (abs_mstr) or 2) update my impcoming shipment (856)
data that has already been loaded into my ASN/BOL/Shipper Master (abs-mstr).

Option 1 would allow ALL of my 214 Shipment Status Message data to have
specific data elements in which to reside. The problems would be tying back
the Bill of Lading (214) data to the related Shipper (856) data records
since there will be a 1:M (one to many) relationship between the 214 and the
856. I'd hate to see this being done in the application.

Option 2 would allow me to update the specific Shipper (856) data records
thereby resolving the 1:M relationship at the time the Bill of Lading (214)
information is being translated/updated. The problems would include a)
Bill of Lading (214) records that reference a Shipper (856) that is Not On
File (what to do with the incoming data?) and b) fields that are used by
both the Bill of Lading (214) and the Shipper (856) would have to be
resolved and a home for each data element would have to be found in the
ASN/BOL/Shipper Master (abs_mstr).

Of course, this is only getting the data into the system, I can't wait
until we begin to try to figure out what to do with it. So, as you can see,
IT AIN'T EASY.

I was hoping that others had come across this same requirement and could
help to act as a "sounding board".

By the Way Charlie, Thanks for your Input! It helps to get the "Juices
Flowing"!

Tony Vallin
I.T. Manager
North America
Transitions Optical, Inc.
9251 Belcher Rd
Pinellas Park, FL 32782

(727) 545-0400 x7316
(727) 546-4732 fax

 

[Chris Kelleher]

I mentioned the prh_hist for purchase receipts. If you use supplier
schedules then the 214 information would go to those tables (sorry I am
more of a finance type and haven't concentrated on supplier schedules in
a while).
Check out the Warehouse Managment/Supply Chain features for what to do
with the data as far as scheduling incoming shipments. BTW, am I missing
something. Why would you be updating Shipper Schedules with incoming
856. Wouldn't you be creating 856 from Shipper Schedules? I don't work
with the EDI module much either.
Charlie

 

[Chris Kelleher]

All,

I'm not familiar with the 214 transaction, so I'd ask what you're using it
for. That will determine where it should go.

In general, you receive 856 transactions in supplier schedules as the
advance warning of an incoming receipt. It's stored in the abs_mstr until
you confirm that receiver, showing up as in-transit quantities on the
release report. The in-transit quantities do not, however, affect the
calculation of requirements; parts aren't here until they're here. It's
part of the nature of cum management.

Scott
===============================================================
Scott M. Dulecki /* 1998061901 */ +1 616 975 6322
Product Manager scott_dulecki@qad.com
QAD, Inc. http://www.qad.com
1188 East Paris SE Grand Rapids, MI 49546 USA

Next Michigan Progress Users Group: 19 January 2000
Next Midwest MFG/PRO Users Group: 13-14 March 2000

All opinions are my own, and don't necessarily reflect those of
any other living being.
===============================================================

 

[Chris Kelleher]

Thanks Scott, I agree with your input on the 856. Our goal is to
"Fore-see" the arrival of the shipments that we receive from Latin America
and the West Coast. In our business, raw materials that come from Mexico
are delivered first to a broker and then shipped by the broker into the U.S.
where it is collected by our carrier and delivered to us. The carrier also
handles large loads coming from the west coast of the U.S. The initial
Shipper (ASN) coming from our suppliers may or may not (more often "may
not") accurately reflect the arrival date of the products, due to the
handling at the border. By receiving the 214 from our carrier, we would
obtain visibility of loads (made up of several customer shipments) that are
truly in transit. With a 98% accurate ETA for delivery by our carrier, we
are confident that we will pick up 3-4 days in our process by a) eliminating
1 day lead time to schedule the shipment into manufacturing after it arrives
and b) the 3 day delay that is created by maintaining a 3 day firm schedule
in manufacturing by being able to pre-schedule these shipments by knowing
the EXACT date that the materials will be delivered. In our process, we
need to have the ability to accurately schedule raw materials that require
"similar processing" thereby maximizing our capacity and lot size and
minimizing machine tooling change-overs. In addition, the forward
visibility will assist us in expediting as the need arises as well as help
us schedule labor. This is less a planning issue than it is an ability to
schedule and cross dock raw materials from the dock to manufacturing with
zero delay. That's the plan.

So with that said, How does it sound to simply update the Arrive Date
(abs_arr_date) field on the abs_mstr for the shipments indicated on the 214.
With a little custom programming, we can know which ASN's were updated and
ensure that the "Confidence-Flag" and accurate arrival date is downloaded
into their scheduling algorithms?

Tony Vallin
I.T. Manager
North America
Transitions Optical, Inc.
9251 Belcher Rd
Pinellas Park, FL 32782

(727) 545-0400 x7316
(727) 546-4732 fax

 

[Chris Kelleher]

In Case no one has said, the 214 is the trucking industry pre-receipt
notice. Same basic information as the 856.
Aren't you glad there are "standards".
Charlie