Cindy Wiebe
My feedback
17 results found
-
118 votes
Cindy Wiebe
supported this idea
·
-
223 votes
Cindy Wiebe
supported this idea
·
-
29 votes
Cindy Wiebe
supported this idea
·
-
162 votes
Cindy Wiebe
supported this idea
·
-
5 votes
Cindy Wiebe
supported this idea
·
-
178 votes
Cindy Wiebe
supported this idea
·
-
62 votes
Cindy Wiebe
supported this idea
·
-
76 votes
Cindy Wiebe
supported this idea
·
-
272 votes
Dear colleagues,
Thank you for raising this idea.
This was part of the CERV cycle in 2025, but did not make it to the final list.
During the analysis, 3 possible approaches were discussed, each has a different estimation and effort:
Option 1: New dedicated process type
- It will be possible to mark specific items as "unavailable", similarly to the way it is possible to mark them as "missing"
- Items marked as "unavailable" will be considered as "not in place"
- The new "unavailable" option will appear as a possible process type in all the places where there is a list of process types, including configuration options such as Fulfillment Unit Rules
Option 2: Mark a location as "unavailable"
- It will be possible to mark a location as "unavailable"
- All items in this location will be considered as "not in place"
- The difference from option 1 is that when an item…
An error occurred while saving the comment
Cindy Wiebe
supported this idea
·
-
22 votes
Cindy Wiebe
supported this idea
·
-
43 votes
Cindy Wiebe
supported this idea
·
-
209 votes
Cindy Wiebe
supported this idea
·
-
17 votes
Cindy Wiebe
supported this idea
·
-
62 votes
Cindy Wiebe
supported this idea
·
-
61 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment
Cindy Wiebe
commented
I was assuming this was for Primo, but it really should work this way everywhere. I wish I could put more than 3 votes toward it. And agreed on adding in 651s to this, as well.
Cindy Wiebe
supported this idea
·
-
15 votes
Cindy Wiebe
supported this idea
·
-
171 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment
Cindy Wiebe
commented
I was considering making this suggestion myself. This would make this process so much more useful.
Cindy Wiebe
supported this idea
·
I have to agree with mcorby in the comments. "I find Work Orders extremely clumsy to use. It is hard to get Work Orders applied, and even harder to get Work Orders removed. It always seems to take multiple clicks/scans."
I hate work orders. It's been quite a while since I've (willingly) done anything with them. I try to avoid them whenever possible. (Note that we are also very small, so there aren't really departments - at least not in different places beyond the person one desk over.)