Stock Requisitions & RQC/Approvals

I'd recommend using RQC Requisition Status.  It is available within the Requisition Center bookmark, although your IT team may need to provide access to it.  RQ44 would be another helpful form to use.  

Hi Stephanie - Not sure I follow, maybe I need to explain better. What the manager would need are the requisition numbers themselves. I think this rules out RQ44. And for RQC req status, there could be multiple requesters & multiple requesting locations. Does this help?

What version of Lawson are you on? We are on version 10 and have IPA. We built a flow that emails the manager with the req information and then they go into requisition approval to approve it and an email is sent to the requisitioner. This is done on the Landmark (IPA) side.

Hi JimY - We are upgrading to v10 in just a few weeks. I like the idea of IPA but I would doubt if our programmer could get that in place in time. We are also upgrading our security, going to the cloud & implementing RQC concurrently with the v10 upgrade, so resources are very limited. I've got a workaround in mind - currently the ship to location is used for both inventory & non stock/Service/Special reqs. If we created a new ship to location code for all reqs outside of inventory, the manager could use RQ41 to find his reqs that need approval with the ship to code designated for inventory items only. Very clunky I'll admit but it may be our only option until we put an IPA in to play. Please let me know what you think & thanks.

I have to ask. What is the issue with inventory requests that your manager has to approve them? Seems like an unnecessary step that could potentially bottleneck the flow of supplies. We use PFI (moving to IPA soon) for req approval but only for specials and services. If a req has only I or N type items it's automatically approved and routed to the storeroom for fulfillment or purchasing for a PO.

It's been some years since my organization has used RQ12 - but we had it up with SEA/RSS and there were no issues with them finding the reqs. So what does: "With RQC, the special ID goes away" mean? It should route the same as any RQ10.

if it does go away - Jon is correct. You can let it go to WH130 and then on WH32 only void/kill the ones to reject rather than approve them one by one.

RQC Requisition Status allows you to remove the default requester information and search by other criteria.  It's not the answer to this whole process but may get you what you are looking for.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd recommend looking at the RQ260 report as well.  This can be run by requisition status and item type.  

Neither RQC Status or RQ260 allow a filter by FROM LOCATION - which is annoying now that I know....

Other things that don't filter by from location and item type: RQ12/RQ140 (neither), RQ50/RQ235 (from loc but not item type) - the rqfl demand on stock takes you to the whfl - but that's all allocation after approval.

You seem to be unique on this. You're likely going to have to put ipa approvals on your to do list and create a smart notification to find all reqs with your from location where item type is I and the status is Needs Approval.

Kat, I think he means with RQ10 you can enter any Requester ID on the req, but in RQC, by default you're tied to the requester id identified in the user's RM setup.

brupp- you can modify the rqc_config.xml file so the requester field can be overridden if you want to continue with this approval process.

setting id="allow_requester_override" value="true"

The end user will see their own unique requester ID by default but they can change it to the special ID for inventory.

How about give access to MS-Addin's Query only and have a pre-made dme to pull this data for them ad-hoc?  

@JonA - manager is to review inventory reqs for UOM issues or any user error. To be honest, this doesn't happen.
@Kat V - The special ID was to help users understand that the req was for stock items only. We don't allow users to mix stocks & non stocks on the same req, & for non stocks we have a 1 vendor per req rule. Very antiquated I know - we are light years behind most of you folks, both inside & outside of Lawson. What do you mean by "let it go to WH130"?
@Stephanie - Thanks so much for the suggestions, but I could not find any one screen to fit our needs. We keep MS Addins locked down to just 2 of us admins but a query only option might work, I will look at that.

Long term you all seem to agree that IPA is the way to go - now if I can just get my requests in ahead of HR's I'll be all set THANKS so much!!