Enhancing Order Management: UX For Advance Vs. Non-Advance Orders

Hey folks! Let's dive into something super important for a smooth order process: optimizing the user experience (UX) within the order detail modal. We're talking about how we handle advance orders (those scheduled way out) versus non-advance orders (the ones we need to get on ASAP). Right now, the interface is the same for both, and that's not ideal. We need to tailor the language and workflow to make things clearer and more efficient. Let's break down the current situation, the proposed changes, and the key decisions we need to make to get this right.

Current State: One Size Doesn't Fit All

Right now, when you're looking at order details, no matter if it's an immediate or future order, you're seeing the same interface. This means both order types show the same elements: the "Assign materials out of inventory" section, along with the selectors for rollstock, width, and run configuration. You'll also spot the "Assign" and "Unassign" buttons. This setup works okay for immediate orders, but it doesn't give us the flexibility we need to handle advance orders effectively. This one-size-fits-all approach can confuse users because the actions and implications for an order due in two weeks versus one due in six months are vastly different. It's time to differentiate the experience to match the context of the order.

Currently, the order detail modal presents a unified approach to material assignment, regardless of the order's timeline. This unified presentation, while simple, falls short in providing users with the targeted guidance they need to manage orders with varying lead times. For non-advance orders, this interface is adequate, as materials need to be assigned from the existing inventory. However, for advance orders, the goal is not immediate allocation but rather to inform future purchase orders and material planning. The current design requires us to rethink the language, workflow, and visual cues to create a more intuitive experience.

Proposed Changes: Tailoring the Experience

Here’s the deal: we want to create two distinct experiences, one for non-advance orders and another for advance orders. This will make the process much more intuitive. Let's explore how we want to differentiate between the two order types:

Non-Advance Orders (Due Within 8 Weeks)

For orders that need action within eight weeks, we will largely keep the current interface. Since these orders need immediate attention, using the current assignment flow makes sense. We will keep the following:

• Header: We'll keep the header as "Assign materials out of inventory" because that's exactly what's happening. The focus here is on allocating the materials we already have on hand to fulfill the order. This is a straightforward process where you're matching the order with existing stock.
• Action Buttons: We'll keep the "Assign" and "Unassign" buttons. These actions reflect the immediate inventory allocation. The "Assign" button confirms the allocation of materials, while "Unassign" allows you to remove the allocated materials. These actions directly impact your current inventory levels.

This keeps things simple and direct for orders that require immediate attention. It gives users a clear understanding of the tasks at hand: assigning existing inventory to meet order requirements.

Advance Orders (Due Beyond 8 Weeks)

Now, for orders that are due further out, we're going to create a significantly different experience. These orders are all about planning, not immediate allocation. The goal is to inform future purchase orders and help with material planning. Let's see how we will approach this:

• Header: We need a new header here. Something like "P.O. Recommendation" or "Material Planning" fits well. These headers highlight that the focus is on future actions. It tells the user that this section is about forecasting material needs.
• Framing: The approach will shift to future purchases. We'll be focused on how the order affects upcoming material purchases, not just allocating existing inventory. This involves calculating how much material we will need and when.
• Action Buttons: We need buttons that reflect the planning aspect. "Mark P.O. Ready" is a great choice. It lets users indicate that a purchase order is ready to go based on the order. "Edit Recommendation" will be another option, giving the user a way to change the material plan. The labels should reflect the future purchase consideration, instead of immediate allocation.
• Forecast Linkage: We should consider a link to the Forecast tab. This link lets users see how the order impacts material consumption forecasts. This could be a preview of how the order affects demand. This helps users understand the broader implications of the order on overall material planning.

By implementing these changes, we will be able to provide a much better experience for users. The changes create a better focus on the order timeline and the appropriate actions for each type of order.

Design Decisions Needed: Let's Get Specific

To make these changes happen, we need to make some key decisions. Here's what we're thinking about:

1. Terminology: What's the best way to describe the advance order workflow? Do we use "P.O. Recommendation", "Material Planning", or "Future Allocation"? The goal is to choose a term that is intuitive and clear to users, accurately representing the function.
2. Visual Differentiation: Do we want a visual cue, such as a different header color or icon, to distinguish advance and non-advance modals? This is good for visual cues, and will help users quickly understand which type of order they are looking at. It can reduce errors and improve the efficiency of order management. A clear visual distinction can reduce the chances of misinterpreting the order status.
3. Workflow Difference: Should we fundamentally change the interface for advance orders, or should we use different labels on the same form? We want to determine the level of change we will be making. Do we need a completely new interface, or can we repurpose the existing structure with new labels?
4. Forecast Linkage: Should we provide a link or preview within the advance order modal to show how the order affects material consumption forecasts? This helps users understand the broader material planning and the impact of each order. This can significantly improve the user's understanding of the material planning implications of each order.

These decisions will shape the final design and make sure the new workflow is easy to use and helps users manage their orders effectively.

Reference: Staying Consistent

For background, take a look at PSC_Demo_App_Spec_v4.md. This document outlines the original specifications for order states. It defines two key states:

• Non-advance: Assigned / Unassigned.
• Advance: P.O. Recommendation Ready / P.O. Recommendation Not Ready.

This ensures that the new design fits into the broader order management system and maintains consistency.

Acceptance Criteria: Making Sure We're On Track

To ensure we're delivering the best user experience, we have some acceptance criteria:

• Non-advance orders: Must show language focused on inventory assignment.
• Advance orders: Must show language focused on P.O. recommendation.
• Action buttons: These must be labeled appropriately for each order type.
• Visual distinction: A visual cue to differentiate the two modal types (if desired). This can be a different header color or icon.

These criteria are a checklist to ensure that our changes are meeting the needs of both the users and the business. They will guide the development team, and ultimately ensure that the new order management system is easy to use and accurate. It streamlines the whole process of inventory assignment and material planning.

We're confident that these changes will streamline the order management process, making it more intuitive and user-friendly. By tailoring the UX to each order type, we'll reduce errors, increase efficiency, and make sure everyone can easily understand and complete their tasks. Let's make it happen!