I like this thought and analogy a lot.
I wonder – and this might exist already – if we all here, or a company or something, could put together the “missing modules” kit for Epicor.
Like, I hate Android, but it is a wildly different experience from my mother-in-law’s cheap old LG phone vs. a Samsung Whatever. There’s a layer of sheen over top the Android base.
But back to the point, we have all made dashboards (BAQs) that saved our lives because Epicor doesn’t compile the info you need or help you monitor for The Things That Will Destroy The Company (missing GL code; settings that affect MRP, etc.). Would it help to have a single repository for those?
I mean, I think that’s probably the intent of the hardly-utilized Code Review category here, but, of course, there’s nothing stopping bad or ugly dashboards from muddying up the pool of useful ones. What a new user would want is like a single group of curators to oversee a single project. (I am not volunteering…)
What I can’t understand is, what is “commonly needed”?
- Standard-costed parts with a standard of 0.00? I think that would have a use
- Part master - how are all of our parts set up, std/avg/etc cost for each part, “list price”…
- But it turns out that “THE list price” is actually not a single number always; you CAN do it that way, or you can assign different base price lists to different customers, etc.
- Report of customers missing a GL code? That’s OK, if you want it to default to the Company setting, but perhaps bad if you are multi-site and want them to be separate. Or maybe even then you don’t care if they all go to the same account.
These are just some examples, of course.
EDIT: Also, what I sort-of had in mind here is that when I, personally, make a BAQ for a “rule,” it’s myopic. I can only see the needs of this company at this time. “Here are the GL accounts for the parts in our system.” Oh, except that we went multi-site and we flex the “division” segment when transacting. Or I assume fairly static UOMs when some companies use part-specific.