Supply Library add cost date

[fishbaugher]

I am seeing that the date of the cost information for the supply library does not have a separate field, and that information is getting coded in the comment. The first normal form solution would be to provide a date field next to the cost field so the information could be updated. Then, change the PK to a combination of the equipment name plus the date-of-cost field making it possible to identify old records.

NOTE: the supply library original design in v8 was a copy-only source. That means, there is no reason to retain older cost information since the record is only used to copy forward into a defined measure or work order. Thus, disregard earlier comment about changing the PK... there needs to be only one currrent cost record for each equipment type, however, we still need a place to record that date

[eckmanwe]

Supply library modification is significantly restricted compared to the open/unlocked design of WAv8. As such, edits are anticipated to be infrequent and cannot be done on a Supply Library that is currently in-use.

Please keep the above in-mind when specifying recommendation.

[fishbaugher]

One observation that might be pertinent. In v8 the Supply Library was only accessed via copy operations, not by reference. That is, the supply library was identified, but any information access from the supply library was by copy only. Thus, there was no danger in 'breaking a link' like in the setup library which is by-reference.

If the v10 implementation is the same (ie all access to the supply library is by copy only), then why not allow the editing of a supply library?

Here is an example case. A supply library is created and referenced, then the price of one item is changed (common). The only way to do this is to copy the entire supply library just for one price change. That seems to imply massive duplication that may not be necessary since changing that one price does not break any references.

Does that make sense?

[eckmanwe]

For reference, we don't anticipate "massive duplication" in-practice as Supply library use is optional and items/costs are typically procured through programmatic required processes on an annual basis. If continuous price changes are expected, then a typical workaround (also used in WAv8) is generic entry and average price is commonly used and adjusted in the specific audit.

To your specific notes, I don't believe that it would be appropriate practice to allow inconsistent editing of shared libraries, which is what I believe you are proposing.

Finally, regardless of data structure/operations, this appears to be a fundamental change to the design, that has been in-place for testing for 4+ years and available for WAP production for ~1.5 years. Users throughout the WA Network have already been trained and user materials disseminated in alignment with the current practice. Given the potential issues and confusion that could be created throughout the WA user network, there is not currently enough benefit to the network given the potential costs. As such, we have logged this as Incubator #163 and will track requests related to this from other WA users. If there appears to be interest from other users, then it will be forwarded to the DOE WA Advisory Group for consideration.

[fishbaugher]

Thank you Bill for the clarification. Given that cost changes are anticipated annually, then 'massive duplication' is certainly exaggeration. Sorry about that.

The other factor would be grouping. Meaning, it would be unlikely that a single cost edit for a single item mid-year is desired. Rather, a single edit-all event at PY boundary is more likely, resulting is a supply library per agency per year.. which again is not 'massive'.