2024-09-17 Mix Ticket Meetup
Participants
@Doug Applegate @Jeremy W Wilson @Manabu Wada Andy Boyle (SurePoint Ag) @Trisha Rentschler
Meeting Logistics
Mix Ticket – Dispensing Work Order / Work Record - 17 Sept - 9am Chicago (10am New York)
Sep 17, 2024, 9:00 – 10:00 AM (America/Chicago)
Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.
Join the meeting in seconds - GoTo
You can also dial in using your phone.
Access Code: 719-580-125
United States: +1 (646) 749-3129
See time and GoToMeeting details on the AgGateway Calendar.
Agenda and Minutes
Main Topics
Use decide tag for any decisions taken
Review Existing Documentation & Resources
Topic Leader:
The desired outcome is that the audience is informed about the background/purpose of the project and current resources available.
Pre-meeting notes and references:
Minutes:
Briefly looked through links, no comments
Discussion
Topic Leader: @Doug Applegate
The desired outcome is that group discusses current state of Mix Ticket, interest in updating or what the group feels should happen, if anything
Pre-meeting notes and references:
Minutes:
Adoption, why or why not are people adopting
Praxidyne
API is based on Mix Ticket but have a few things that are not required that they are treating as required and a few other variances
There are things like Parties that could generate a bill of lading, etc. for stationary plants
Includes extra information beyond what was mixed, more for trucking
Question on if that needs to be handled differently if all of that is really required
For their use would prefer not to include that as it is a different business process than mixing
Feel it is possibly out of scope for a mixing operation
May be a difference between a mixing facility and mixing in a field
Kahler
A lot of the integrations seem to be very one-off with specific data requirements by customer
Basically there is the same data but every connection seems to be special
Question on if they are really special of if there is a dividing line that moves on who does what
e.g. something that the mixing system handles in the field or something the ERP does in the field
Leads to some messy UI issues for the mixing system with requirements for things that are maybe not directly focused on the mixing operation
Is there core data this could focus on that would be able to standardized on
Originally was the goal of the project to make it simple, but a lot of extra stuff was added back in, it was pared back down but ended up being somewhere in the middle of minimal and too complex
Have implemented message with other AgGateway members but have had some confusion on what versions or even what parts of Mix Ticket were used
Great goal to drive this
It is a lot of work to do one-off integrations
Both up front connection, documentation, maintenance
Very difficult to get everyone on the same page
Would be good to know what. if anything is preventing people from implementing
Need some sort of more direct outreach to get feedback/engagement
One thing missing is rates
Blends are represented as totals
Water and chemical
One marked carrier
Optional to add an area
Users want the ability to adjust utilizing rates
Order comes in for 300 ac, but want to make the batch for 320 (aerial)
Be able to adjust the carrier to be able to enable that change
Terminology sometimes confusing
Batch of jobs will load a plane that will travel across several fields that get the same mixture and application rate
Believe mix ticket handles this but might needs some additional rules/implementation guide
Need to be able to receive the group of jobs but report back individually
Likely need a little better explanation/rules on how things work for the data exchange
Make sure the business process on how it is used is clear
Believe the original team made the schema and some technical support materials but may not have clearly documented expected process boundaries etc.
Question about when a work order is sent out that has parties etc.
Would prefer not to take all that data in and store it
Is it possible to only send back a work record that contains new information
Just “fill in the blanks” for the work record and not have to regurgitate all the repeated information form the work order
Question if an change is made at the field for additional pest, change of rate, etc.
Can cause issues if identifiers do not match when work record goes back to ERP
Question on if the work order needs to be modified first so there is no mis-match
For businesses that makes sense, but points to the need for a definition of the business process is intended to work
Raises the question on what product list is available to operators to make changes
Question on if InFieldProductID could be leveraged to get a product list
…