v10 - More about 'real time stock control'

[Golf Tee Warehouse]

Let's see if we can get this feature that Actinic Catalog and Business have been missing since concept working ...

3. The final element is the ability to sync stock levels automatically between website and desktop on a regular and frequent basis. The achievable frequency will vary between sites depending on factors such as broadband speed, PC and server capacity, number of products and volume of orders; but in most cases synchronization should take place in seconds. This is made possible by a change of architecture, whereby stock level changes are stored in separate transaction files on both the web site and the local PC. This dramatically increases the speed of synchronization compared with the current method. It requires the sync server, and will not be available with Actinic Catalog. It is fully compatible with Actinic Link for EPOS, enabling automatic stock synchronization across all channels.

Bruce can you clarify the point made in post #1, element 3 where you seem to say that Actinic Catalog will not have the auto sync feature. If this is the case am I correct in assuming user of Catalog would need to manually sync with the server to keep the stock values accurate.

[TraceyHand]

well spotted/remembered!
I presumed this meant that realtime stock control (if, indeed, it ever is!) will only be available in Actinic Business with Actinic Catalog staying the same as it is now? (I'd missed that)

[brucet]

That was our original intention, but we are now planning to put auto sync into Catalog as well.

[markburley]

Actinic doesn't treat a 'cheque payment' or 'payment on account' order in the same way as it treats PSP pending ones though.
It's this differentiation in payment treatment that we want(need) to see in the real-time stock adjustments.

ANY order that gets directed to the "Pending" tab (as opposed to the PSP pending one) should be allowed to deplete stock online.
Now, I appreciate that, in the case of a PSP paid order, this means looking for the callback to check that the order was completed but, that's what we expect.

Cheque orders and other orders that are likely to end up in the 'pending' tab should, IMO, have their stock allocated (as opposed to aborted PSP orders which should not)

granted a number of these other payment method orders may end up unpaid, but at least the website is treating the stock levels in the same way as Actinic is then.

(and yes, it should have an option to turn the allocation of stock to psp pending orders ON also. I've never used it because we get a LOT of failed/repeated transactions but I am aware that some do and any solution should cater for both, IMO)

Hope that made sense!

If fully agree with Tracey. This is exactly as I would implement the new stock control. Will also need to be sync with POS and MOTO orders.

Mark

[brucet]

That's fine, there seems to be a consensus that the issue is with PSP Pending orders. I just wanted to be sure we're not missing another requirement as well. Thanks everyone for confirming that.

[Mike Hughes]

Sorry - I guess that may have been a knee-jerk reaction...

Thanks Bruce. I think we all often reply to things when we're still feeling the immediate emotions to what we've just read. You should have seen my first comments (but then again, maybe not).

The key thing here for me, and others too, is that the RT stock control has two functions:

1. Allocate stock to prevent overselling (and ending up in the quagmire of disappointed customers, offering alternatives, refunds and apologies. All time consuming and none of it fun).

2. Making sure the available stock is available until sold.

This is the problem with the current solution. In cases where there's limited stock available (which is where we actually need the RT stock control) there's a good chance that the customer will lock themsleves out of ordering. This will happen when a customer backs out at the payment stage and tries again. I get this regularly either because of payment problems or they decide to add/change/remove something at the last moment before paying.

How annoyed are these customers going to be when they decide they'll change something at the last minute, only to find that they're now not being allowed to order because the item is showing as out of stock? Not to mention the orders that we'll lose as the customer leaves the site in frustration.

I've run the numbers on actual orders earlier in this thread to show this is a real problem. It's not something we're just making up.

In terms of how this how this should work, my own view is that something isn't sold until it's been paid for, so this should apply to all orders (i.e. only allocate stock where there is a PSP Payment Callback to confirm payment). This would also avoid the problem when a customer selects 'pay by cheque' by mistake and then comes back to pay by credit card online, only to find the stock has already been allocated to his previous order.

However, I can see that others have different requirements, particularly anyone who's doing B2B with 30 days credit terms. As an initial, easy set up, option I could live with Tracey's suggestion of allocating stock to orders, except when there's no Callback on a PSP order. Ideally though there should be a selectable option for each payment method (Allocate stock before payment received? Yes / No)

In terms of whether this can be included or not, I suspect everyone here would rather wait a week or two for V10 to see this included. If it's not in the first release it probably won't appear until 4-6 months after that and this is too important to be sidelined like that.

Bruce, I know that as Product Manager you're probably on our side on this this and want V10 to work properly from the off. So I have to apologise if you feel we're arguing against you. This isn't the way it should be and I'm sorry if I've contributed to that.

As the Product manager though, we're reliant on you to stand up to the others in Actinic and push for this to be included. QA wouldn't allow a flawed release to go ahead and I hope you feel the same about this.

Mike

PS. Can I just add, in amongst this other stuff, that I do appreciate having detailed discussions about features before the release is done and dusted. The process is a bit messy but I hope Actinic will work on improving that rather than retreat into silence. It should be a useful process for Actinic and the users.

[pinbrook]

PS. Can I just add, in amongst this other stuff, that I do appreciate having detailed discussions about features before the release is done and dusted. The process is a bit messy but I hope Actinic will work on improving that rather than retreat into silence. It should be a useful process for Actinic and the users.

In my view this is where Actinic can really bring people back into the fold. I have been very dissapointed with the finer detail of some of the new features in v8 and 9 as they were clearly coded according to programmers specifications and/or commercial pressures. These have often been miles away from user expectation and usability. Dare i say it - half cocked.

This discussion on stock control is a case in point - alot of people are looking forward to it, and to release it where it kindof works for some people is simply suicide. To get it to work according to expectation is going to require some extra work, but not to do it will cause major fall out - esp now that the shortcomings have been highlighted and a decent spec pretty well agreed upon.

[brucet]

OK, here's the good news. Real Time Stock will observe whatever is set for 'Allocate Stock for PSP Pending Orders'.

Unfortunately we can't go as far as making it independently configurable for different payment types, but hopefully it will be enough to answer most of the objections.

We're trying hard ATM to resist adding bits and pieces late in the development cycle, because that can both delay and destabilise. Hence the initial reluctance. But this is obviously an important issue for all of you, and not especially risky, so we have decided to include it.

Thanks for all your input to the discussion.

[markburley]

Thank you for the update Bruce - I look forward to the Beta!

Mark

[TraceyHand]

ditto.
Thanks for the update and the whole discussion in general.
I'm completely with Jo when she says that this up front approach with Actinic and the development process is miles better than it all going on behind closed doors and I think this is a case in point.

Hopefully, the trend of discussion and resolution will continue the way this did

[pinbrook]

OK, here's the good news.....

Good Man Bruce

[guccij]

[Mike Hughes]

Thank you bruce.

I'm looking forward to seeing V10.

Mike

[Rich Brady]

I didn't realise you'd grown a tash since the conference Jules

[bentleybloke]

So how will Real Time Stock handle backordering and the setting to allow associated products to control max/min values?