Question related to configurator, the scenario is described below.
Part number and revision is created in past by a configurator
In present if a user creates the same combination in same configurator, system gives a message that the part you are trying to create already exist
Then system picks the same part and revision from past
If the past part number and revision is wrong, but the present configurator is updated with correct information, Is there a way to override the correct information into the past part and bring it in?
I tried running out and disabling the old part but still it picks the old one.
You can make the new part still be configurable and save values. It will start out with the existing values and then you can reconfigure to adjust values. This does mean you need to reconfigure to get the new results and they only apply to the current line. This gets messy as typically you have as many configurators as you have parts created by the configurator.
Alternatively I have added logic that asks if they want a new part instead of the old part. If they do the part number gets adjusted to a new part number. For one client I just increatment a -suffix. This way they can tell the parts are of the same origin.
The whole part on the fly vs real parts is an ongoing decision challenge when building a configurator. The configurator is optimized towards part on the fly as the assumption with configurator is you have orders that you can’t anticipate what the customer wants.
I try to steer clients away from real parts unless there will be regular reordering of the same thing over and over again. Even then you can easily take an existing configurator order and make it a stock part with the engineering workbench and about 2 minutes work.
If it is just a matter of a customer wanting the same thing as last time, pull up customer tracker, find the order, and copy the line from that order. They will get exactly what they got last time. You can reconfigure if needed to adjust what they want. Also with good use of lookup tables any changes in part numbers and the like will be reflected in the new line.
Thank you Jim for the reply,
I tried deleting revisions from old parts created, by this way if a sales person configures the same part it writes new revision with new rules and Pn’s.
As you said, we are also thinking about a prefix or a suffix to denote which that part was made, thus will have new revisions.
Its all part of it as rules and Pn’s of the configurations we made are changing constantly.
If these are changing regularly, and if your users are configuring prior to checking for an existing part, I’m wondering if you might be better off not saving the parts to Part Master on configuration, and just leaving these as Parts on the Fly. Is there something more (Serial Numbers, for example) that require you to save these Parts in the Part Master?
Hi Kevin,
In an ideal world, the rules wont/shoudnt change, but as we are exploring together (engineering, manufacturing and sales(experience)) new ideas pop up everyday. eventually we would settle down. becasue of this reason, i am taking more time to prove a configurator before releasing it.
Your idea of having it as a part on fly is a good option too…
Serial numbers can muck things up a bit but Parts on the Fly can handle serial tracked parts with a little bit of creativity. To serial track we do need a real part. For parts on the fly we just need to NOT change the part number as you might want to do for customer facing documents. So if the part number is “widget”, we leave it as “widget” Instead create a “customer facing” part number that you put in a separate field. This is only used for paperwork purposes and you would add it to a tracker for easy location.
While this can happen with a new product, as others have pointed out, if your processes and MOM are changing regularly that does seem to infer Parts on the Fly would be a better model. Customer and shop floor would always get the latest and greatest process/MOM for each order.
An added cavett, I highly recommend to my clients that design of configurators wait until you have settled on how you want to use Epicor to run your business. It is rare that a process decision needs to be made with the configurator in mind. There are exceptions but if operations and parts are still in flux the configurator design tends to be a moving target. I usually add that this will unnecessarily benefit my retirement fund.