Vendor Divisions and Contracts

We use the purch froms as vendor divisions - not our locations - so I'm completely guessing.

Can you tie the PO25 to the vendor and then use participants to tie to the correct accounting units?

We use the pfroms for the vendor divisions and also for each ship-to location within our system. So if there are 3 divisions for a vendor and each division has a separate ship-to account for 3 of our hospitals I'll build 9 pfroms. We do not use the pfroms on the agreement, only the vendor. We use participants on some agreements but most of our agreements are system wide. Once you have an agreement built with a vendor and pfrom I don't think you can just remove the pfrom. You'll have either to duplicate the agreement without the pfrom or maintain two agreement records for the same contract, one for the main hospital and one for the surgicenter. My preference would be to use addins to load an exact copy of the current agreement but without the pfrom and then put the original on hold. Then assign participants if needed.

EDI will map based on Vendor, Location and Purchase From so EDI vendors will get the right account number.

Non-EDI vendors can be more of a problem. I put an enhancement request in with Lawson a couple of years ago to add a table (similar to ED40) to add account numbers to PO's for non-EDI vendors. The request was pretty well received and voted on but I don't think Lawson has moved on it. At a GHX summit, they stated it was the vendors responsibility to get the right account number...nice to say but it doesn't always work that way.

The account number for non-EDI vendors (and EDI vendors for that matter) can be added to AP10.2 on the Contacts tab.  Our buyers have access to only this tab so they can maintain contact information without needing to go through AP.  If the Account Number field is populated it will show on the PO when it's faxed, emailed or printed.

 

Jon, et al,
As a preface, EDI translation does address much of the challenge described here. To that end, Kat V recently started a thread about using the ED40 (EDI Substitution Table) and IPA to assign accounts for E-mail/Fax orders. I responded that we instituted such a process mid-last-year and I can discuss more on that thread.

Back to the question... We also use the Purchase From to define the vendor division, the internal affiliate, and the transmission method. We also do not generally assign a Purchase From on the PO25 Agreement, but do have a fair number of exceptions. As we have a mix of Acute (JIT/LUM and Bulk), Ambulatory and ASC companies all pulling from the same pool of Agreements, we do run into issues where the AP10.2 (Vendor Loc) account number is not granular enough. Barring the technical solution we have, the other suggestion would be to build essentially a duplicate agreement with the separate Vendor/Purchase From combination and then managing those by participation and priority. Not a great solution but it is functional.

If going down this path, just make sure that your more restrictive Agreement has a higher priority. So, as an example, if you generally do not manage participation (PO25.3), then build these Agreements with a higher priority (lower number) than the original agreement. That will push all locations through the new Agreement first, but since they are not defined as participants, they will "fall" to the lower/open Agreement. We do this with GPO Tier and Class of Trade issues successfully.

Probably not much help, but just to have it out there,
Red