I had a quiet chuckle at Richard’s rather frank comments -
he has expressed what we all feel from time to time.
User reasoning is as follows :
For any one vessel, there will be say 10 destination ports, with
200 transport documents in total. So 10 different sequences of document
numbers, with a completely random number of documents per port.
While vessel is loading, there are many last minute changes to
cargo, cancellations, changes to numbers of containers, late bookings, and it
gets a bit frantic because a summary of all transport documents must be placed
on board the vessel and the same summary must be submitted to customs
authorities, prior to departure. Otherwise fines, confusion for vessel
personnel and at discharge ports etc.
The users insist on a rigid sequence of document numbers, from
one vessel to the next, with no missing numbers for any port or between vessels.
This is the only way (so they claim) that they can ensure no cargo is “dropped”.
They study the summary report looking for missing numbers (it is printed in
port then document number order). The time they must spend trying to re-assign
unused numbers can only be guessed at.....
I have suggested that cancelled documents are not deleted from
the database, but are locked and marked as cancelled, with a reason &
timestamp etc -the number will never be used again. Also suggested a summary
view of all document numbers, sorted and summarised per port, with cancelled
numbers in red. No deal. They argue that missing numbers will cause confusion
at destination ports, where local agents will not understand the gaps in
numbers, as they also rely on a complete number sequence as a control tool. I
suggested sending the summary report to them, also highlighting the cancelled
numbers for them, and so it goes on........
So I can understand where they are coming from, but it does
still seem a case of storing the cups upside-down – it is just the way
they have always done it. The inefficiency involved in doing it manually for
the last 10 years makes me sympathetic to their request for help.
So any further ideas on the gaps?
Peter
From: FileMaker Pro Discussions
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Richard S. Russell
Sent: 22 December 2011 00:39
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Serial number
On 2011 Dec 21, at 14:41, Peter Buchanan wrote:
Also, users have (against my advice...)
insisted that when a document is cancelled, the number should be released for
use again, and it must be used on the very next shipment to that port. So if
0019 was cancelled and 00030 had was the most recent document, then the next
document would get 0019, and not 0031.
Repeatedly tell them that they're crazy, that no competent
database professional would EVER do it this way, and that they can ask a dozen
other authorities if they don't believe you.
If they're still pig-headed about it, devise a 2nd, parallel
(and maybe best hidden-from-view) system that does it the right way, so you can
sort out the inevitable confusions and mix-ups for these undeserving bozos.
Then be sure to document what you do for the benefit of your
successor and start looking for work elsewhere.
= = = = = =
Richard S. Russell
2642 Kendall Av. #2
Madison WI 53705-3736
608+233-5640
Sun god! Sun god! Ra, Ra, Ra!