Clarification required - particularly from Transport Group

Title: Clarification required - particularly from Transport Group

In profiling the Northern European subset, we have come across the following issues which requires clarification, particularly with regard to how the Transport Group interprets the elements in question.

In Line Item on Order we have Minimum Quantity and Maximum Quantity

In Line Item on Order we also have Delivery, inside which we have Minimum Quantity and Maximum Quantity

LineItem.Minimum_ Quantity and LineItem.Maximum_ Quantity could be be interpreted as a way to express a tolerance on items where precise measurement is impractical e.g. cement where

LineItem.Quantity = 1 tonne

LineItem.Minimum_ Quantity = 0.98 tonnes

LineItem.Maximum_ Quantity = 1.02 tonnes

Question 1 – is this the correct interpretation ?

if Minimum Quantity and Maximum Quantity in LineItem.Delivery are interpreted in the same way:

there is the potential for the tolerance on the Delivery to be different to that on the Line Item

for multiple uses of Delivery at Line level, there is the potential to set different tolerances for each Delivery

We almost conclude that we should use Minimum Quantity and Maximum Quantity at either Line Item or LineItem.Delivery level, but not both.  Question 2 – do you agree ?

My personal view here is that we should use the Minimum Quantity and Maximum Quantity in Delivery.  Using the example above, it just makes more sense to say that there is no tolerance on what is actually being ordered (it really is 1 tonne), but a recognised measurable tolerance on the delivered goods.

We also recognise that, using the Partial Delivery Indicator in Line Item could put a different slant on the use, particularly, of the Minimum Quantity.  Here, again using the example above, we could order 1 tonne, allow partial delivery, but use the Delivery Minimum Quantity to state the smallest partial delivery that would be allowed.

Second point re. Delivery Terms:

We almost conclude that Delivery Terms should be coupled with Delivery in terms of their cardinality i.e. if multiple Delivery is allowed at level, then multiple Delivery Terms should also be multiple.  Otherwise, if Delivery is split between two locations on the line the fact that one Delivery is FOB Copenhagen and the other is CIF Stockholm cannot be stated.  The problem here is that, in this instance, there is no modelled connection between which Delivery Terms applies to which Delivery.  The solution in the Order is to use different lines where different terms apply, but Question 3 – is it a wider problem that Delivery and Delivery Terms are not conjoined ?

Regards, Mark

Mark Leitch

Director - Tritorr Ltd

tel.:       +44 1932 821112

cell.:      +44 7881 822999

mail:      

skype:    wmarkle

site:       www.tritorr.com