Hello everyone,
My company has several separate independent production lines. One problem is that the part number has to change when passing parts from one line to another. even though the parts are the same. In this case, we have adjusted the quantity. The quantity of the old part number was reduced and then the quantity of the new part number increased.
Is there any way to change part number without Qty adjustment?
An old employer did this and basically they made a deep Bill of Material
Final Product
- Nth Step
- Nth - 1 Step
- Nth -2 Step
...
They backflushed to the next step until finished.
Why does the part number have to change? A couple possible reasons I can think of:
There are tow reasons for changing the part number
Do you use the configurator?
We create a new part number in Record Creation;
I interpret your drawing as part A having three revisions (or one revision with three alternate methods) using B, C, and D as materials. B, C, and D could be made to and consumed or sold from inventory, or they could be make to order when selling and make to job when making an A. I don’t understand your question because I don’t know how to not change the part number to A. AFAIK, the job that makes a B into an A could not have B as its output part. MoMs cannot be circular.
That’s the way I saw it too. You can make part B and either sell it or send it to a job to combine with part C and D to sell part A
Dean
B, C, and D have different manufacturing methods and raw materials. But in the last line (A) it is the same part. So the last line asks for the same part number. In the previous line, we considered manufacturing all of them with A part numbers, but since each is sold separately, the part numbers must be distinguished.
It seems that my drawing made it difficult to understand. I simply want to know if there is a feature to change the part number without using Qty Adjustment. Some people I know say there is no such feature.
If I understand correctly, your last line represents making an A with a B, C, or D as a material input. Why does the part number of the material matter? It seems that A is what is being sold or inventoried after that process. At that point, it doesn’t matter what the inputs were.
I guess my example wasn’t appropriate.
As another example,
I did an inventory count. In Part A, the Epicor quantity is greater than the actual quantity, and in the B part, the Epicor quantity is less than the actual quantity. (with the same quantity) In this case, I usually use Qty adjustment to decrease the quantity of part A and increase the quantity of part B.
Is there a feature to directly change the quantity of part A to part B without using Qty adjustment?
So do you have 3 BOM revisions for part A?? one that consumes part B, one that consumes part c and one that consumes part D?? If this is what you have then the problem is ensuring you create jobs for part A using the correct revision.
That’s not the case. There is one BOM for Part A. In this last line, whether it is part B, part C, or part D, one of them is used as raw material. For the last line, one of B, C, and D parts is selected and used as a raw material. It is usually used with the largest quantity first. Part B, part C, or part D does not differ in characteristics and is not a revision issue. Part B, part C, or part D are all the same raw material.
It may be difficult to understand because of the nature of my company’s business. So, I asked if it is possible to convert the quantity between part numbers when there is a difference in the stock quantity for each part.
if you set up a BOM for part B that uses part A…have a look at Kanban Receipts, this may suit.
This sounds like an XY problem. If B, C, and D do not differ in characteristics, they should be the same part. But you said they’re different parts because your customers care about some distinction when they’re sold separately, so that says there is some difference that justifies them being different parts.
I might put all three on the BOM for A and use a No-Inputs Configurator to only keep one of them according to your rules. But your requirements still aren’t clear.
Usually for something like this, it’s a property like sheet size. It matters for some parts, but not all. So a small sheet and large sheet can used interchangeably for small parts, but not large parts. Also thrown in there can be drop pieces that are perfectly good for some parts, but not others. It’s a real problem in cutting operations and trying to keep accurate inventory to try and creating BOMs to be able to handle scheduling if you are trying to run lean.
I didn’t think of scrap and salvage. Is it something like that, @pilio.lee? You can use small piece B, or you can use large piece D and salvage a B from the scrap?
The answer to everything in Epicor is to use a job. Old part number is the material and new part number is the thing the job is making. You will get variances if using standard cost, of course. Other than that, no.
Lot numbers, you can change those through Inventory Transfer.
Those are the only workarounds I know of.
I’m with everyone else, though, in trying to help solve the problem closer to the origin. I’m reading this as @PaulMorgan did, which was a revision scenario.
So I take this as
If these were tied to sales orders, there is a way to “use part revision.” Or configurator, as was mentioned.
The issue being discussed is already running using a part revision. That’s why I said the first example was wrong and made it difficult for you to understand. Sorry to confuse you.
My fundamental question is whether there is a function to change without using Qty adjustment when there is a difference in quantity between the actual stock for each part and Epicor’s stock.(When the difference between one of the two parts is + and the other is -)
I’ve heard from many people that there is no such feature. But I’d like to check it out again in this community of Epicor experts.
Right, I think I answered that, and it was the first thing I addressed. I get that you are getting frustrated with us going on a tangent from what you are wanting, so I tried to respect that.
But as other smarter* people have said here elsewhere, a lot of times the problem isn’t the real problem, so we were trying to give you other options.
*Edit: I mean smarter than me. Sorry that came out poorly.
