Inventory by revision is a big change and touches a lot of things. It may be easier to put the rev in the part number and have Epicor focus on making alternative parts work easier with MRP, etc.
I understand… but I do not think having the rev in the partid is the way. Loosing some part info… it is same part, just packaging is different… Using the lot # may be a better way… Fortunalty it is a low % in our parts… So weighting the cost/benefits… might not be viable for ungoing such change.
1 Like
Yes, Lot might be a better way to go if they are indeed the same because I think you’ll be waiting a VERY long time. Epicor has said time and time again that this a HUGE change. 
1 Like
I think that this one would be almost impossible for epicor to implement because every business has a different idea of what a “revision” is. Some it’s just packaging, for others it’s a totally different part and everything in between. Plus for those of us back flushing, it’s one more piece of information that has to be assumed by the system. (assumptions are often times wrong).
I would agree with Mark, that Lots are the way to manage this for companies that need it.
2 Likes
I had this disucssion with Epicor and was given the following rationale - which in this case I agree with
Epicor ERP does not track the revision number for items in inventory as it not necessary to do so. ERP follows the standard practice of fit, form and function therefore if a part is subject to a change that affects any of these attributes then it must become a different part, not a different revision. Therefore if a demand exists for a part then any revision of that part will suffice as the fit, form and function have not changed. The logic is that it is the attributes of the part, not the revision that determine the suitability of using its supply against a demand.
Revision numbers are used to track a history of changes to the product structure of a part i.e. engineering change control.
This explains why there is no mention of revision numbers in the inventory tables.
3 Likes
I recommend lot-tracking so at least you can determine the revision based on the job that produced it.
1 Like
In Aerospace, you have revision levels on everything. Often customers will up-rev something minor, and allow the sale of old revisions until they are consumed. At my previous employer, we did not want a new part number for each revision, since you’d lose history. We ended up making a customization to append the revision letter to the lot number when parts were put into inventory, and added that to our pack slip/Cert of Conformance. I heard Epicor was internally working on revisions at Insights 2017… @Edge?
1 Like
Maybe the solution to the history problem is easier solved by combining/displaying more than one part in a usage view rather than re-architecting the whole system?
All of these are qualifiers for a different industry, a different employer, a different customer etc. Those are all areas where someone may want something different. That’s impossible for epicor to make something that will work well for even most, never mind everyone.
This is a better thing for Epicor to focus on, the customization, so customers can do what they want. I would rather have Epicor focus on more ways to make customization easier, rather than to lock me into a process made for aerospace or medical. There’s already too many areas that are too cumbersome if you don’t need the red tape.
My 2 cents…
My point I was intending to show is about the flow… We create a part with a revision, we sell a part with a revision, we produce a part with a revision, and we place in inventory without its revision and then the revision is back when we ship the part from that inventory…
Of course, the labels should have the info, and hopefully the shipper needs to be carefull as he sends the right revision … and as well the use of lot numbers does the job. but lot numbers is a bit more pain to use … as per our shippers…
I was pointing out the lost of the revision “infomatically” as a user cannot produce a report of the inventory of revision A vs Revision B.
As Andris points out we loose the part history about sales etc adding a suffix to the part. May as well do use Lot numbers.
It is always an issue about costs/benefits as what is the cost of changing the system to allow revision in inventory available vs what will be gained for the users… that’s up to Epicor dev to see!
Pierre
1 Like
Re part revisions you would need to reach out to the Product managers for the roadmap. I have not seen any changes but we have alot of teams working and I dont track every individual feature. People have worked arround this by using Lot Numbers to segregate inventory tied to Revision Numbers but it is not inbuilt and requires some effort to handle reporting.
1 Like
@askulte is exactly right. Part Revision is extremely important in Aerospace, and it is common to have multiple active revisions. (old revision in stock, new revision in WIP)
The only solution we found was to create a custom at the job receipt to add the revision to the tail end of the lot number. So you end up with something like: “LOT123-A”
This works, but is not ideal at all… Wish Epicor would spend resources on accommodating this as apposed to fancy active homepages… execs use the system a lot less than the people who are actually doing the transactions every single day.
1 Like