Compare the operating models
A fictional regular repair call-out uses service code CALL. One unusual job has an agreed one-off packing charge. A restockable mug has SKU M1. Typing every item as Other makes the catalogue simpler at the cost of meaningful stock and sales records.
| Business requirement | Catalogue item/service | Explicit custom line |
|---|---|---|
| M1 mug | SKU enables stock movement | Would lose stock identity |
| Regular call-out | Repeated service code/reporting | Inconsistent text fragments history |
| Unique agreed packing | Permanent entry may be unnecessary | Description, amount and job reference |
Work through the chosen model
Catalogue records retain identity, supplied price basis and stock/service type. A custom line retains the actual description, agreed amount and job reference without pretending to be M1. Recurring custom charges should be reviewed for a stable service code.
- Identify repeat or unique offer
- Select catalogue or describe custom charge
- Retain actual fulfilment/reporting context
Catalogue setup takes work but supports repeated identity. Custom sales handle genuine exceptions; they should not become a shortcut around stock selection.
M1 sale reduces M1 stock; CALL remains a repeat service sale; unique packing is one explicit non-stock charge linked to its job.
When the other model fits
Packing becomes a standard offer sold every day. Stay only free text?
Show the worked answer
No. A stable catalogue service can improve consistent scope and reporting.