We need part numbers so that we can have a corresponding drawing. If you have a part number AND a bill of operations, then you have to report at least one of those operations from what I can tell.
What is happening for us is that we would like to have a part so that we can have a drawing that matches the part number, and we would also like to see that part when it is used in any other Epicor BOM (where used), but we don’t want to report any of the operations inside the part since it flows so fast through our plant.
In other words, Part A contains Part B and Part B has only 1 operation. Because we finish Part B so quickly, we don’t want to take the time to walk over and report it. Is there any way to make it so that when we report the operation that Part B is related to in Part A, that it would report the operation in part B? OR is there another way we could set up Part B so it reports itself? Just looking for any suggestions here.
Feel free to ask more questions if I wasn’t clear enough.
Have you looked at Phantom BOMs? If you need the structure to exist in the master part table, but you don’t need it on jobs, you can use phantom boms which will collapse the materials and operations to the next level up. You can set the operation on the phantom part to be a backflush operation, which means that an operation after it will complete the backflush operation.
There are a couple of hurdles to get over when using this method. 1. the part numbers don’t show up on the jobs anymore. 2. the all or none nature of this may hurt your ability to be flexible. 3. In the past, there was problems with phantom’s correctly multiplying required quantity. I don’t know if that’s been fixed.
If that doesn’t work, there are always customizations that can be done. We tried phantom BOM’s but the part numbers missing in the jobs ended up being too cryptic. So now we have dashboards that can mass complete operations. It’s kind of a pain to make, but, you can make a dashboard that clocks in/out and completes operations for batches at a time. You just have to understand how to most effectively filter.
I agree with Brandon.
Phantom BoM Part B. You will still be able to do a where used and see what part Revs have that part on it, but the Job BOM for Part A wont have part B on it.
i have not done anything similar, just an idea worth trying -in my opinion-
why don’t you try to invoke start activity then end activity at Post- ReleaseJob method pass all needed parameters from ttJobEntry which will include one operation as you need, you may need to tag this system labour transaction for traceability purposes.
Yes JobReleased Method on Job Entry, and according to your requirement you do not need to know about this lower level Part B Operation…add UD flag on Job Head to apply this on
I would like to do it at any place we decide to start reporting if we can. @Banderson have you done something like this? @A.Baeisa have you done something similar in a BPM?
Yes… that is the hardest part, I am nowhere near capable of reading a trace accurately. I wish there was customization class at insights about how to read a trace and create the same thing with code.
unfortunately, i have not done anything combining what i suggested in one BPM i.e. trigger, getById, then invoke two different methods, passed all required parameters, to update PartTran all in one hit, but the principle is the same, it is not simple but worth to try.
Utah - going back to your original post, it sounds like you want a part number that represents a drawing or set of drawings that you could add to a standard method so that you could then know what standard methods used a particular drawing. If this is the case, why not mark the part as non-quantity bearing (uncheck the Quantity Bearing box in the Part screen) and this way there are no transactions that occur for the part and yet it is still there in your method. You don’t need a BOO for the part so it is just a place marker for your drawing.
I may have misinterpreted your original questions and if so, please disregard this. However, we are doing this for our drawing packs so Engineering can know what drawings are associated with what top level parts.
Hope this helps or at the very least, not created more confusion.
I had thought something similar. In my original post I mentioned that Part B does have one operation. I agree with you, I don’t think we need it in the method so long as we can still associate cost with it since it is manufactured.
Yeah we could make it work by putting the operations for that part into the parent part, Part A, but it would get a little complicated to know what part you are making and when.