We have a client who wants to synchronize products between Salesforce and his ERP solution (Sage Office Line).
In Sage it is possible to have many graduated prices (in German we say "Staffelpreise") per product which are selected according to the amount. Say you can buy 1 iPad for $800, if you buy more than 5 iPads you get it for $750 or more than 100 iPads you pay $735 each. Very simple logic.
What the client has now for the example above, are 3 products in SF, where in the ERP is only 1. And fancy Names in SF like e. g.
- iPad (1-5 pcs.)
- iPad (6-99 pcs.)
- iPad (100+ pcs.)
Now in Salesforce we have the well known Product2, Pricebook2, PricebookEntry structure and an old-school UI on opportunity for LineItems, which has as to my knowledge no bulk-price mechanisms out-of-the-box.
I see the following alternatives:
a.1) Custom Object+UI
I think a good design would be to create BulkPrice__c custom object for that purpose. The logic to fetch the relevant bulk price I would put in a custom UI (not in a trigger) to provide better UX. The data structure is very simple, the UI-replacement is more effort. Because stuff like schedules is not required, the UI can be simplified.
a.2) Custom Object+Trigger Like a.1) but use a Trigger instead a custom UI. Downside is a poorer UX due to wrong price display during addition of new products and possible interference with manual price tweaking by users.
b) keep it as-it-is
Bad data-mode with redundant products. More effort with integration-mapping. No effort for UI/Objects.
c) hacked UI (not recommended)
d) Concatenate bulk prices in a text field (failed)
Populate a long textarea with bulk prices. Let the user manually copy+paste the according price. It's like c) with the hack replaced by humans. Update: this approach reders practically worthless, since a custom field in the "Add Product" or "Update all" Standard UI can only be displayed from OpportunityLineItem and not from PricebookEntry or Product2.
My question is, if there is any best practice for this scenario or if anyone of you would propose a different (better/simpler) approach?