No default Sales Representant in request window

Logged In: YES
user_id=983486
Originator: YES

Fixed in rev. 3208

Logged In: YES
user_id=1238223
Originator: NO

What I always thought strange, Johannes, is why is the "Sales" rep assigned requests at all?
Ok maybe if it was a request for quote maybe ... Or is this a case of mislabelling? Is this really a selection of users who are employees or is it really a selection of Sales Reps?

colin

Logged In: YES
user_id=983486
Originator: YES

Hi Colin,

yeah it's kinda mislabeling.
Sure if the request gets invoiced then we already have a sales rep predefined
for the invoice. But in any event, the reference is just a adempiere user and
maybe we should change the label, what do you (and others) think?

Best regards Johannes

Logged In: YES
user_id=1180760
Originator: NO

Maybe the "Sales Rep" has sense if we see the Requests module as CRM.

The issue is we use Requests for a lot of ways more than CRM :-)

Not sure but I think "Sales Rep" goes beyond employees, I think it also include "Vendor Agents".

And with the wide use that Requests can have - the only meaningful label I can imagine is "Assigned Person".

Regards,

Carlos Ruiz

Logged In: YES
user_id=983486
Originator: YES

Yeah you are right Carlos, Vendor Agents are included as Sales Representatives.

"Assigned Person" or maybe "Maintainer" would be a better label I agree.

Best regards Johannes

Logged In: YES
user_id=1238223
Originator: NO

As I said, I can imagine some special scenarios when a Sales rep could be assigned the request, especially if the Sales Rep is a desk sales rep (as opposed to an on the road sales rep). The concept of CRM in my experiences has come from two (at least) different areas... Sales & Service. In the Sales area the naming Sales rep would seem reasonable but in the Service (call centre & helpdesks etc) Service Rep is more common or Customer Service Rep (CSR) when they are in the field.

In this case the concept of Requests is so open, and potentially used for so many functions I think Carlos is right in that we should keep th label very non-specific and just label it "Assigned to".

colin

migration script 047_libero_migration_script.sql reverted this fix (wrongly I assume).

So, recreating the original revision with revision 11642

arrived to /release with revision 11665

This Tracker item was closed automatically by the system. It was
previously set to a Pending status, and the original submitter
did not respond within 14 days (the time period specified by
the administrator of this Tracker).