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:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard S. Russell Sent: 22 December 2011 00:39 To: [email protected] 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 [email protected] http://richardsrussell.livejournal.com/ Sun god! Sun god! Ra, Ra, Ra!
