On Friday, it’s EpiUsers Frideas Day! Have you been to the Epicor Ideas Portal recently? If so, are there some ideas you want to encourage other users to vote for? Maybe want to add comments to an existing idea?
We had an offline discussion last week about which category this post should appear.
Your thoughts?
Under the category of you don’t know what you’ve got til it’s gone…
Ability to copy Kinetic dashboards in application studio
Starting from scratch each time is unnecessarily inefficient. Hacking your way through exported files isn’t a whole lot better.
On the poll, do we assume there’s a category that everyone is subscribed to? Do the P21 people use Epicor Ideas? Could there be just ECM users like my former employer who owned DocStar before going to Epicor?
Just thoughts
https://epicor-manufacturing.ideas.aha.io/ideas/KIN-I-5153
I would rather put my routing rules on the RDD not on the report style.
I would venture to guess that most people START in an unfiltered main screen when they come here (perhaps bad assumption) and then filter down if they want to focus. But perhaps the powers that be could make a category like “Feature Requests” that would publish/show in all categories?
Epicor “Ideas” includes ideas for all portions of the Epicor (dare I say) “family” of programs… Kinetic, ECM, Grow, Prophet, etc. So, in its current state, I would think it should belong/get posted to all (if possible)… unless you specified that this is a “Kinetic Frideas” weekly post.
Make a post for: Kinetic ERP, Epicor 10 ERP, ECM, CPQ, QuickShip, P21, and HCM. With the templates, that wouldn’t be too bad.
This method that was presented at Insights has been working well. Agreed an official solution is needed, but until then…
edit: just noticed you included not hacking thru exported files. This method requires hacking thru exported files 
I’ll go back to sleep.
Allow Admin Access to All Shipment Data in QuickShip
https://epicor.ideas.aha.io/ideas/QS-I-221
Ability to Disassemble a finished part to put materials back in inventory
https://epicor.ideas.aha.io/ideas/KIN-I-3684
I am torn about this. On the one hand, you can use a job adjustment to do this. But that feels like it means it was an accident. For some of the use cases, people have to do this as part of their regular work flow due to subcontracting, QA, etc. In our case, we have one supplier who is also our customer that insists they ship us “kits” of parts to make 1 of their product. So we receive in 1 kit box that contains like 9 different part numbers that we use in different stages of production. So we are very pooly using co-parts to try to break these apart. And then a purchased part is really a manufactured part because we manufacture it by breaking apart a single purchased part… it’s awful. So please vote for this idea!!
There are two use cases I have seen:
Customer returns parts and some components can be used while others (seals, etc.) cannot.
Company made a bunch of assembly A but the actual demand needs more assembly B and there’s not enough of component Z to make it. So we disasemble As to fulfil the demand.
Ok, maybe a third.
I forgot about this. We make some configured products and when we get a returned configured part, there is no path forward to do anything with it. It’s haunted us since day 1 on Epicor. We have a procedure and dashboard that our go-live consultant made for us that probably works but only learned about it a few weeks ago… so yeah…
I think the stumbling point here could be on the costing side. Yeah, you can return/salvage parts… but if a customer sent in equipment and you disassembled it… at what value do those parts hit inventory?
We do this all the time with “trade-in” type stuff, or sometimes we’ll purchased used equipment so we can use it for parts. A customer will send in a gearbox and we’ll disassemble them and then have to manually adjust in (qty/cost) each part we want to save
It happens enough that I added a “Cost Adjust” button on our Quantity Adjustment screen. It opens the Cost Adjustment screen in a slideout and passes the part number so the user doesn’t have to as much work to do both processes.
Yeah I am seeing the writing on the wall that there likely isn’t a common solution for all the use cases. I like how in the RMA you can define the returned part’s cost when disposing it. You’d need some element like that in the Break Apart tool.
Also, you would need to somehow factor in the labor that was used to disassemble it.
Here’s a Frideas from our Cost Accountant: KIN-I-5133
https://epicor.ideas.aha.io/ideas/KIN-I-5133
Get back feature parity from classic on Customer Tracker: Customer Tracker Is Missing Customer Name
This would help mistake-proof the process by adding another way to verify the user is working with the proper customer (instead of an incorrect CustID number)
Customer Tracker / Entry - Should show customer Name as well as Customer ID in Heading
When on Customer Tracker or Entry it would 100% make using the screen less confusing if the the Customer number as well as the customer name could be in the heading when navigating to different Cards / menu items while on this screen (SEE EXAMPLE ATTACHED)when i switch to billing, the customer name is not at the top just the Customer number - Billing. In the classic view the customer name showed up on the menu tree view. We are getting pushback from the finance team on this when suggesting Kinetic Screens be used.
You can change the Headings (“Page Captions”) here… just add {Customer.Name}
You’ll have to do this on EVERY PAGE… but it’s doable.
If you do it on the BILLING page… it’ll appear on the “Billing - GL Control” page. So… gotta do each mommy-page and the babies follow.
Perfect for Epicor to fix and make it default for everyone. 
On Frideas - I like to see what new features are needed.
I also think that a thread or Wiki? of what features have not been brought forward into Kinetic - right click to a calculator in a number field, right click to Import files in a text field, and several more.
This platform that is independently manage is truly the voice of the users of Epicor that sometimes is forgotten when developing Kinetic.
I’m going to push back a little here, Bruce. I’m CONVINCED that Epicor is always listening across all channels: Customer direct, through the Sales Cycle, EpicCare, Epicor Ideas, EUG User Groups, and here.
Both examples listed are already in Epicor Ideas. I do like the idea of adding a “parity” tag to those ideas. 
It’s important to note that some capabilities are tougher to do within the browser security context and I understand why those are going to take a little extra work.
