-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Boley
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 12:06 PM
To: Andrea Sitler
Subject: RE: Fleet Maintenance

I agree with this book report. Thanks Andrea.

Frank

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrea Sitler
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 11:30 AM
To: Jesse Watson; Roy Trotter; Gary Sedlacek; Jorge Quiroga
Cc: Frank Boley; Gary Sedlacek ([email protected])
Subject: Fleet Maintenance

 

Frank and I had gotten together to discuss the current issues of this software package.

What we have discovered is that when you change a grid arrangement, it is only done locally.  Only you can view that change.  This is not good because we were setting things up to display properly from work order to service history screen.  Frank is checking now to see if the report changes I made are only local or if all can view (global).

This software seems to have a lot of surprises - for lack of a better word.  We are all logged in as the same user with the same permissions.  What one does should affect us all.  However - sometimes it does, sometimes it does not.  I have to ask WHY?

Since we can not view the code or have the programmer to talk to, we are shooting in the dark.  Entry is becoming hit and miss when WE define a field.

If you enter information under the purchase order screen, it is displayed nowhere.  The format that I see entered there only gives monthly totals and does not attach to any one unit.  This defeats the purpose of this software tracking system.  If you want monthly totals there - it can be done BUT you are doing double work.  You would have to manually add all the 'like' invoices, total, divide by the number of services performed to arrive at a 'price' and then enter all this data.  One would think you could arrive at the same conclusion through a reporting screen. If you are going to double work yourself, you might as well have stayed with Excel.  You are gaining no efficiency out of this new package if you use it this way.

Frank is working to see what screens CAN convey from work order to service history.  Since this is hard coded, we are at a disadvantage at this time.  We are suppose to have user defined fields but thus far, I only see them accessible in one screen.  This is not what we want.

Frank has found info to lead us to believe that IF WE MAKE CHANGES AT THE SERVER, INSTEAD OF LOCALLY, WE WILL COME CLOSER TO WHAT WE WANT.   This should allow us to view more of what we want to see as well as keeping the changes executed viewable by all and not just locally. From the reading - this is the conclusion drawn.  Of course, it all comes back to - what is hard coded?  What did the programmer 'expect' the need to be?  Did he/she feel that certain changes (i.e. grid changes) only needed to be locally (on one's own screen)?  I do not know these answers.  Perhaps Jorge will.

I feel to proceed from this point, we need Jorge (or IT's) help.  We need database management.  The programming part that I can do to this software, is about at an end.

My recommendation is to get with Jorge to make FINAL changes at the server. That is once we know what we want - get Jorge to 'edit' or 'add' at server level.  This will allow for global changes (if the reading is correct).  Then you need to assign permissions so that users will not 'fiddle' with settings they should not or know not about.  IT needs to be responsible for that end.  Again, this is once ALL is decided.  Since reports needs to have tables linked and then designed, I again recommend IT's guidance.  It is way too easy to loose information, end up with a useless report due to 'unlinking' a table and so on.  As I mentioned in the report for the meeting, if you place a 'term' on the BLUE line when you drag and drop for layout - you loose the heading.  It is not difficult to remake a report but it must be executed with care.  That is why I am recommending IT guidance.  I am not trying to step on Frank's toes.  I just do not want to see a report that is frequently used accidentally corrupted.  I do not feel that IT will need to spend a lot of time on this project - once it is up and running.  But I do feel that their intervening is practical when doing 'other than daily functions'. 

The bottom line is - I feel it would be better suited for a DBA to handle sql, table set-ups, report changes and the such.  A degree of database management is going to have to come into play with this software to keep things from becoming corrupted.  I feel IT is aware of this factor and Jorge's helping the other day shows their awareness. 

Perhaps he (Jorge) should be invited to the next meeting.  I think his input would be valuable.  He seems to have a better grasp of the database side than any of us at this time.

Frank and I or Gary, Frank and I need to get together to further explore this software and it's possibilities.  However, I do not recommend much input of invoices until we have a system established.  Vehicle (UNIT) information upgrades can continue. 

Personally, I have been changing the 'bucket truck' to 'aerial device' and working on getting that information updated. 

Hopefully we will have reached some conclusions by the next meeting so that we can proceed thus making this software package productive.

 

 

 

Andrea L. Sitler

979.821.5920

 

"Words without ideas are like sails without wind." - Courier Record