Co-Parts and alternatives

(Erik deJonge) #1

We were investigating co-parts to handle a situation that’s better described as family jobs.
There are tools that will produce different parts. They all are scheduled to run simultaneously but each has it’s own BOM and costs.
The trouble with co-parts is that it assumes the each co-part assigned to the job uses the same method/BOM and costs. When you’re reporting at intermediate steps there is no distinction between any parts. Same when you’re reporting scrap parts it’s only reporting scrap at the base level.

Is anyone aware of something else within Epicor that can handle this type of functionality?

(Claudia Stone) #2

Ok…so a little more info please. You have a tool that makes several different parts simultaneously or ?

(Erik deJonge) #3

A tool as in a physical machine. Injection mold to be precise. Produces multiple unique parts.
Our current setup has these all being run with different jobs as each part will have a different BOM.
It makes scheduling a headache because although they’re all running at the same time they’re not linked for scheduling purposes.
It also can make labor reporting a headache because when the machine is being run the operation needs to be logged into all the jobs at the same time.

(Claudia Stone) #4

Yea…that’s what I thought. Co-parts will not work IMHO. The way you are currently doing it is the only way I’ve seen work, pain though it is. Anyone else have a better option?


(Chris Conn) #5

I previously worked on E10 at an injection molder - co-parts would not work for our purposes. The biggest caveat was not being able to independently being able to report scrap on the co-parts.

(Belinda Hannah) #6

Job batching could help out on scheduling aspect. Jobs are still their own routing but can be batched for a common operation.

Give that whirl and see what you like or don’t like.

Belinda Hannah

(Erik deJonge) #7

@Chris_Conn that’s a big part of it. The other issue is that the BOM assumes that all the co-parts consume the same materials.

@Belinda_Hannah thank you. I’m going over that now and it looks like it’s going to do what we need. I’m having some issues getting it to work right but I’m going to keep testing it.

(Rye) #8

You hit the down side of coparts correctly. I work for an injection molding company and we use coparts extensively. Sometimes I will set the parts up individually and have the floor run both travelers at the same time just because of these issues. I change the mode to concurrent in the jobs. I’m not sure what that will do for the scheduling of it.

I have reported the problem with not being able to report quantities on all parts if the job/method has more than one operation to Epicor. I was told it is “working as designed”.

(Erik deJonge) #9

“working as designed” is the response I would expect.

@Belinda_Hannah, hopefully I can pick your brain on this a little more. I was able to get one to create a new batch job. Is the batch for the sole purpose of scheduling the operations?
When I tried reporting labor it appears to follow the same rules as co-parts and I’m getting some oddities looking at what’s being reported back.

(Rye) #10

I have tried batching the jobs and found the same thing…that they are treated in the same respect as coparts.