Using Revisions in Vantage

Yahoo Archive
1
No we don't own the product configurator module.



Michelle de la Vega

Business Applications Manager

Cold Jet, LLC
455 Wards Corner Road
Loveland, Ohio 45140
513-716-6400

513-382-3281 Cell
513-831-1209 (fax)
www.coldjet.com

Setting industry standards in dry ice technology and solutions for over
20 years.

________________________________

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of vantagenook
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:14 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Re: Using Revisions in Vantage



Hi Michelle,

Are you using the parts configurator at all?

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"Michelle de la Vega" <mdelavega@...>
wrote:
>
> We are having some problems with the way we manage engineering
changes
> and revisions. Currently we create a new part number for each ECO,
for
> example if I have part # 123 and make a change to it, the new part
> number would be 123-A. There are several problems with this method:
>
>
>
> 1. Huge database of part numbers
> 2. Tons of Job deviations
> 3. Customer Service never knows which part is the most
> current/active revision, versus a part that is being engineered and
not
> released yet.
> 4. Vendors deliver 123-A, but blanket PO was for 123, so we
> receive wrong part number, but back flush on a job the correct part
> number which takes it negative.
> 5. I could go on and on, but you get the idea.
>
>
>
> Due to those issues we are now looking into using the built in
revision
> within Vantage. Some issues that we have ran into with that are:
>
>
>
> 1. No tracking of inventory by revision
>
> a. We stock old revisions for our technical support
> department and new revisions for current production items - how do
we
> know how many of the current production items we have for re order
> purposes? How do we know if we have stocked too many of the older
> revisions and should try to reduce inventory for the technicians.
>
> 2. We are on the Average Costing method and frequently purchase
> older versions at a higher cost
>
> a. Since older machines can't use new parts, we have to
> purchase the older revision items one at a time and therefore the
older
> revision costs a whole lot more than our active production
revision, so
> if these items share the same part # our average cost would sky
rocket
> and our margins would plummet.
>
>
>
> How does everyone else handle these issues?
>
>
>
> Michelle de la Vega
>
> Business Applications Manager
>
> Cold Jet, LLC
> 455 Wards Corner Road
> Loveland, Ohio 45140
> 513-716-6400
>
> 513-382-3281 Cell
> 513-831-1209 (fax)
> www.coldjet.com
>
> Setting industry standards in dry ice technology and solutions for
over
> 20 years.
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2
We are having some problems with the way we manage engineering changes
and revisions. Currently we create a new part number for each ECO, for
example if I have part # 123 and make a change to it, the new part
number would be 123-A. There are several problems with this method:



1. Huge database of part numbers
2. Tons of Job deviations
3. Customer Service never knows which part is the most
current/active revision, versus a part that is being engineered and not
released yet.
4. Vendors deliver 123-A, but blanket PO was for 123, so we
receive wrong part number, but back flush on a job the correct part
number which takes it negative.
5. I could go on and on, but you get the idea.



Due to those issues we are now looking into using the built in revision
within Vantage. Some issues that we have ran into with that are:



1. No tracking of inventory by revision

a. We stock old revisions for our technical support
department and new revisions for current production items - how do we
know how many of the current production items we have for re order
purposes? How do we know if we have stocked too many of the older
revisions and should try to reduce inventory for the technicians.

2. We are on the Average Costing method and frequently purchase
older versions at a higher cost

a. Since older machines can't use new parts, we have to
purchase the older revision items one at a time and therefore the older
revision costs a whole lot more than our active production revision, so
if these items share the same part # our average cost would sky rocket
and our margins would plummet.



How does everyone else handle these issues?



Michelle de la Vega

Business Applications Manager

Cold Jet, LLC
455 Wards Corner Road
Loveland, Ohio 45140
513-716-6400

513-382-3281 Cell
513-831-1209 (fax)
www.coldjet.com

Setting industry standards in dry ice technology and solutions for over
20 years.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
3
Hi Michelle,

Are you using the parts configurator at all?

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Michelle de la Vega" <mdelavega@...>
wrote:
>
> We are having some problems with the way we manage engineering
changes
> and revisions. Currently we create a new part number for each ECO,
for
> example if I have part # 123 and make a change to it, the new part
> number would be 123-A. There are several problems with this method:
>
>
>
> 1. Huge database of part numbers
> 2. Tons of Job deviations
> 3. Customer Service never knows which part is the most
> current/active revision, versus a part that is being engineered and
not
> released yet.
> 4. Vendors deliver 123-A, but blanket PO was for 123, so we
> receive wrong part number, but back flush on a job the correct part
> number which takes it negative.
> 5. I could go on and on, but you get the idea.
>
>
>
> Due to those issues we are now looking into using the built in
revision
> within Vantage. Some issues that we have ran into with that are:
>
>
>
> 1. No tracking of inventory by revision
>
> a. We stock old revisions for our technical support
> department and new revisions for current production items - how do
we
> know how many of the current production items we have for re order
> purposes? How do we know if we have stocked too many of the older
> revisions and should try to reduce inventory for the technicians.
>
> 2. We are on the Average Costing method and frequently purchase
> older versions at a higher cost
>
> a. Since older machines can't use new parts, we have to
> purchase the older revision items one at a time and therefore the
older
> revision costs a whole lot more than our active production
revision, so
> if these items share the same part # our average cost would sky
rocket
> and our margins would plummet.
>
>
>
> How does everyone else handle these issues?
>
>
>
> Michelle de la Vega
>
> Business Applications Manager
>
> Cold Jet, LLC
> 455 Wards Corner Road
> Loveland, Ohio 45140
> 513-716-6400
>
> 513-382-3281 Cell
> 513-831-1209 (fax)
> www.coldjet.com
>
> Setting industry standards in dry ice technology and solutions for
over
> 20 years.
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>