For Australian breweries using 3PL, Carton cloud integration is a must. I can’t find any existing feature requests for this.
We are looking at 3PL and I’ve been steered by several other breweries to use Software that integrates with Carton Cloud. I’m not yet using it but could pass on some details of breweries that are interested in Breww that need this integration. I think you will find this will get a number of breweries over the line that are using the larger 3pL partners.
This has been mentioned to us before, but this is the first time it’s been added to the community feature requests section, so thank you for this.
My thoughts on how this should work are as follows:
Link a “Site” in Breww to a “Warehouse” in CC.
Build a tool to allow “mapping” existing customer accounts in CC to their Breww
counterpart.
Build a tool to allow “mapping” existing products in CC to their Breww counterpart.
When stock is moved to this site within Breww, Breww will inform CC of this (with
a CC inbound/purchase order).
When stock is moved from a CC site in Breww to a non-CC site, Breww will raise a CC outbound/sales order to get this stock delivered from them back to your own site.
When a sales order in Breww is set to be dispatched from a site link to CC, Breww will allow you to set the batch codes of the stock to be used and will ask CC to fulfil the order (with a CC outbound/sales order).
If Breww needs to raise the outbound/sales order in CC, but the customer isn’t mapped to an existing CC customer, Breww will create a new customer in CC for you automatically (and map them for future orders). This will save you from having to create new customer accounts for new customers in both Breww and CC (you can just create them in Breww).
When the order is confirmed as dispatched in CC, Breww will update the fulfilment
to complete in Breww.
Can you please let me know if this is what you have in mind? Have I covered the right points and understood the workflow correctly?
Thank you for the offer to pass on some details of other breweries that would be interested in this. Of course, we balance feature requests between existing customers and the potential to gain new customers, but the prospect of a feature that covers both is always exciting. One of our team will get in touch with you privately to discuss this as it could certainly help with us prioritising this request.
This looks great to me. Workflow for return units, sent units, SKU and customer mapping.
Not listed is create SKUs not in CC.
I would also like to see costs captured for delivery and warehousing. Could accumulating storage costs be setup for SKUs or manifest in a warehouse? And delivery costs then associated for a customer from a specific warehouse? Each “Warehouse” will have its own delivery rates based on customer location.
Not using CC presently I’m not sure how it looks, but I will check with an existing customer how this works for them presently. I’ll try and get that done this week.
Thanks, Nathan, and apologies for the slow response.
I’m sure this is all possible, but we would definitely need to break this down into the MVP features and nice-to-have features (such as accumulating storage costs) as otherwise, realistically, it’s not going to be able to fit into the plan any time soon as the build time will be too substantial.
I understand my colleague has a call booked to understand this in more detail, so we can go from there. Cheers
I think the cost breakdowns will be a great addition to understand total cost of the solution but not necessary to make a Carton Cloud (CC) integration extremely useful.
The main thing required is to automate the PO and invoice to Carton Cloud and make sure the inventory is in sync. Having a linked CC inventory we can draw down from in Breww will keep us in Breww and not have to create processes between Brew and CC
Did you want me to raise a different request for lesser functionality? Can’t this be broken down by priority?
Thanks, Nathan. This is really useful information. Sorry for not replying to you before.
I think we’re good with this feature request as-is for now. Depending on where we get to in the initial build, we may look for some extra feature requests for further functionality. Thanks.
100% to all of the above! (I felt a simple “vote” wasn’t enough to stress how much of a game changer this would be in terms of efficiency and accuracy)