Offer: Transfer - Define the position of benefits when transferring offers.
Birgit Pfisterer
If you transfer an offer to an existing contract structure, it is currently not possible to specify at which position a new service or even several services should be added.
In the case of complex contract structures, a possible workaround for positioning services is to insert a service at the desired position as a placeholder in the existing contract structure and to establish a corresponding link between offer item and placeholder when transmitting the offer. This works for performance groups, but not for individual services.
If you link an individual service with an existing item in the offer, the position is “moved” and appears, for example, at the end of the contract structure (see screenshot).
When several new offers/services are linked in this way, it also happens that positions, incomprehensible, are inserted between existing positions.
When a further individual service is transferred again, which is not linked but is newly created, it is no longer inserted last but before the newly linked one.
suggestion:
In principle, services that are newly created should always be added to the end of the existing contract structure.
If positions from the offer and contract are linked together, the positions should be retained in the existing contract structure. Even if these positions were created there manually.
Arne Semmler
Hello Birgit Pfisterer: That's actually the way it was meant. If you can reproduce that there is a bug here, you would have to show it to me on the test account. If you select the link to an existing service, the service of the offer is inserted again at this point. It becomes difficult when it is selected that the benefits of the new supplement should be inserted “as a separate benefit group” - because this is actually clearly contradictory, with the link to existing benefits elsewhere in the contract. I therefore believe that this is not so much a bug as that it is not clear what users would actually expect in which case - and that we probably simply enable too many cases for this to be easily mapped out. I suspect that for the transfer screen, if we want to continue to offer as many - or possibly even more - options for assigning/placing the services of an offer to a contract structure that does not match the structure of the offer, we would have to redesign the transfer screen again (or, alternatively, restrict the options). We should discuss this separately. In any case, can I currently not find a bug here and would therefore move the point to the feature request?
Birgit Pfisterer
Arne Semmler yes, let's have a look at the screen... I tested it up and down yesterday with bbp, we were able to produce a lot of things but not systematically re-produce. We'll stay tuned...