Looking for Advice - Alternate methods vs multiple revisions

Yahoo Archive
1

Your downside is training your order entry people to pick the right revision on the sales order so you know which revision the customer will get.  I’m a fan of the multiple revisions.  If you currently have revision control you may want to put an extension on the rev.  Like rev ‘1PMI’ versus the normal rev ‘1’, or something to that effect.  Then you attach your documentation to the correct rev.

 

Manasa

 

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 10:42 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Looking for Advice - Alternate methods vs multiple revisions

 

 

Hello All!

 

We have a situation with our products where a customer will purchase a manufactured item (ETO or MTO).  Some customers will take the item as designed, but others would like PMI (Positive Material Identification) done on the same item.  We are aware of multiple ways to accomplish this.  Currently, our order entry people will enter the item on one line and add a PMI part on another line.  It is then up to the groups downstream to become aware of when this is needed and when it is not.  The problem we are having is that the item always contains a PMI map (attachment) and a QA Hold type operation for them to perform the task.  This causes many mis routings of the job documentation and confusion until someone looks at the sales order to see if it is really needed.  Here are some ideas that we have come up with.  If anyone out there has a similar situation, it would be helpful to hear how you have solved this issue.

Ideas:

duplicate part numbers - (add PMI to the end of existing part number) - This would satisfy the additional attachment and operations requirement, but would mean that our engineering department would potentially be maintaining twice as many parts

Alternate Methods - This would solve the operations requirement, but the attachement would still exist even if PMI was not required.

Multiple Revisions - This would solve both the operations and attachment issues we are having.  On top of that this would allow our order entry people to choose a specific revision that would drive the requirement for PMI.  I'm not sure if there are any downsides to this method

Thanks in advance for your help!

 

Devin

2

Hello All!

 

We have a situation with our products where a customer will
purchase a manufactured item (ETO or MTO).  Some customers will take the
item as designed, but others would like PMI (Positive Material Identification)
done on the same item.  We are aware of multiple ways to accomplish
this.  Currently, our order entry people will enter the item on one line
and add a PMI part on another line.  It is then up to the groups
downstream to become aware of when this is needed and when it is not.  The
problem we are having is that the item always contains a PMI map (attachment)
and a QA Hold type operation for them to perform the task.  This causes
many mis routings of the job documentation and confusion until someone looks at
the sales order to see if it is really needed.  Here are some ideas that
we have come up with.  If anyone out there has a similar situation, it
would be helpful to hear how you have solved this issue.

Ideas:

duplicate part numbers - (add PMI to
the end of existing part number) - This would satisfy the additional attachment
and operations requirement, but would mean that our engineering department
would potentially be maintaining twice as many parts

Alternate Methods - This would solve
the operations requirement, but the attachement would still exist even if PMI
was not required.

Multiple Revisions - This would solve
both the operations and attachment issues we are having.  On top of that
this would allow our order entry people to choose a specific revision that
would drive the requirement for PMI.  I’m not sure if there are any
downsides to this method

Thanks in advance for your help!


Devin