Just had a look at the new pallets function. On our current system we create a number of pallet labels initially on a production order (based on what we think we’ll get out of it). We’ll then fill the casks and stack then in layers of 6, scan a pallet label and then the 6 casks, which then links the casks to that pallet label. This is mainly so when scanning to a sales order that has (for example) 48 casks on it we can scan the pallet labels rather than all 48 casks. This is an additional feature that would benefit us (and I’m sure others) greatly. Towards the end of the year we will have an order for ~500 casks, so you can imagine how time consuming it would be to scan them all individually.
Yep, scanning onto the pallet would make sense for us also, even on our (tiny) scale.
Very much in the way that containers can be assigned to a delivery (scan manifest, then containers). Nearly all we do is in non-returnables and we don’t print labels in advance.
You probably want to vote for your own request
Also: I’d like to be able to take something off a pallet and assign that to a delivery in one step, rather than remove it, then assign it. So this is a pallet considered as a unit for stock management rather than a dispatchable thing.
If I’ve understood you correctly, you’d like to be able to scan containers to build pallets?
If so, this is a great suggestion; thank you. But, you might not actually need it (feel free to correct me if I’ve not grasped something properly). Our intended workflow was that you’d get Breww to automatically assemble the pallets for you when racking. This would mean you don’t need to rack, then assemble to a pallet, as all can be done at once.
Assuming 48 casks per pallet, I’d suggest that you rack the 48 casks, telling Breww these are on a pallet during the racking process, and then print the pallet label from the “Racking success” screen.
If you were racking, for example, 480 casks in a single racking, you can tell Breww that you fit 48 per pallet, and when printing the pallet labels at the end, you’d get 10 pallet labels. The first 48 casks would be on the first pallet (i.e. the first pallet label), then the next 48 scanned would be on the second label, etc.
Even though this process works for 480 casks, I’d still suggest racking 48 at a time, and completing the process 10 times. Although this is a few more clicks in Breww, it’s easier for the person doing it to track and make sure they don’t confuse the labels to use, etc.
Or is there a good reason why you’d want to rack and then later assemble? Either way, we will keep this feature request open, as it would be a great addition
I suspect it’s not always going to be easy to make sure that the first n containers racked will be stacked onto the first pallet, etc. Or that stock labels won’t get out of order… Obv, breaking a large racking up into pallet sized chunks is a workaround. But it’s not ideal.
And… adding containers to pallets outside of (after) racking would be a whole lot easier if they could be scanned on.
Morning,
This looks similar but not quite what I’m after. Generally, one of our brews will yield ~150 x 9g casks. How we rack is by filling casks and stacking onto the bottom layer of say 12 pallets. Once all the pallets have the bottom layer of 6 casks each, we will scan them. We will have produced a pallet label for each layer of casks before filling, so normally around 25 of them. So how it currently works is that the guys will place a pallet label on each layer of 6, then scan the pallet label and then scan the barcodes of the 6 casks on that pallet. This is repeated until all the bottom layer is scanned. They will then transfer this data to the system, post it, which will then generate the stock labels. They will then carry on racking until then tank is empty and repeat the process described for the top layer of casks. The pallet labels will then be attached to the cask divider and an arrow drawn on them depicting which layer the pallet label corresponds to. this means when an order comes on for say 48, my warehouse guys can just scan 8 pallet labels instead of 48 individual casks. He can however still pick individual casks for smaller orders.
I appreciate that the process (as it works in Breww at the moment) is slightly different from what you’re doing currently, but I do feel our process would work well for you.
In light of your last message, I’d suggest the process should be:
Start racking.
Scan 6 casks (one layer of one pallet).
Complete the racking process.
Print the stock labels and pallet label (to represent a layer).
Apply the 6 stock labels to the casks and pallet label to the divider.
Use the “Rack more” button to return to step 1 and repeat until all layers of all pallets are racked and labelled.
Would that work for you?
Some relatively simple changes that we could make that would make this process even faster would be:
Add a “Print stock & pallet labels” button on the “success” page, which gives you a single file to print with the stock labels first and the pallet label after. This would save opening two files and printing two files.
Add a “Rack more just like this” button that would make the racking process faster by:
Skipping the steps of prompting you for which vessel the beer came from and which product is being racked.
Defaulting the input to confirm you’re racking onto a pallet to “on” (or to match the previous racking process).
Defaulting any other sensible options to match the last racking process, such as best before date overrides, loss volumes, etc.
Your suggestion would allow for a slightly different process to work, too, but it would require scanning each cask twice - once when racking and again when creating the pallet - so I’m not sure that it would be better overall, to be honest.
Please do let me know if I’ve misunderstood anything here or if you don’t agree that this would be an ideal process.
We want to print the pallet labels first, and then link the casks to the pallet label. Why can’t we do that? A pallet label is just a number, we should be able to print a whole load of them ahead of time.
We’re pleased to confirm that a related feature has been implemented.
I appreciate that this isn’t quite what has been asked for here, but the Ability to print pallet labels in advance from planned packaging is now available to use and should hopefully be helpful to people in this thread, so I wanted to highlight it here too.
@aaron-taubman this should do what you were looking for.
