Who's On?

	Membership:
	Latest: Saef
	Past 24 Hours: 0
	Prev. 24 Hours: 0
	Overall: 5226

	People Online:
	Visitors: 507
	Members: 0
	Total: 507

Name	Points
Greg Moeller	4184
David Williams	3349
JonA	3291
Kat V	2984
Woozy	1973
Jimmy Chiu	1883
Kwane McNeal	1437
Ragu Raghavan	1372
Roger French	1315
mark.cook	1244

Inbound EDI 810's and multiple vendor locations

2 Replies

0 Subscribed to this topic

43 Subscribed to this forum

Sort:

Author

Messages

Brent

New Member

Posts: 3

9/18/2012 4:02 PM

Hello. We are attempting to set up to process EDI 810’s in Lawson 9.0.1.5.768, using GHX. We have an issue regarding Trading Partner setups and how we configured our Vendor Locations in AP10.2.

We have multiple facilities that have their own Trading Partner ISA ID’s. We have created a Vendor Location for each of our facility locations per each actual Vendor Location in order to have the proper account number in the AP10.2 form for each of our facilities. All of our Vendor Locations are set up as “Both Remit To and Purchase From” types, with the Normal Remit To and Normal Purchase From flags set to “N”.

Does anyone else have a similar configuration regarding vendor locations, and how did you solve the incoming invoice EDI file setups in the Substitution Tables to make sure multiple account numbers with the same trading partner were applied to the correct documents?

JonA

Veteran Member

Posts: 1163

9/19/2012 3:07 PM

I know I've already answered this in the Premier/Lawson discussion group but I'll repeat the imformation for anyone else here that might have the same issue.

We also have our AP10.2 set up by facility/vendor but we use the same ISA id for every trading partner. All you should have to do is create a separate ED10 record for each vendor/ISA id combination. You should be able to use the same substitution tables (same Tpid) for each vendor regardless of the ISA id. Just make sure you have all the unique inbound records for each facility. For example…

GHXJHS_I_PROCESS_LEVEL
GHXJHS_I_PURCHASE_FROM

Brent

New Member

Posts: 3

9/20/2012 2:56 PM

Thanks Jon. We're going to try using the PROCESS_LEVEL. We may also look at using REMIT_TO instead of PURCHASE_FROM in the 810 setup. Thanks for your help.