When a new Part is created, it only adds the site for the Site that PM was launched from. And it only adds the default warehouse.
How can I have all sites and all of their warehouses automatically added when a new part is created.
We currently have 5 sites, and 6 warehouses (one site has 2 warehouses)
I’d like to figure out how to do this as well! It would save tons of time.Probably a post processing directive on the part update method? I’ll play with this
I would also think a in transaction data directive should do this as well.
This is why we duplicate parts a whole lot. They take one that’s similar and then duplicate. This gives us all 3 plants… Problem is users aren’t the best at combing through all the fields to ensure correct for the new part.
So how would a BPM be used to create the other plants and add warehouses?
Here’s some criteria:
- Upon creating a new part, add the other sites as plants for the part.
- Add all of each sites warehouses.
- Leave all other fields blank, or their default value.
- It would need to work on the first saving of the part. We’d still want to be able to remove warehouses and sites, and don’t want the BPM to automatically add them if they’re missing.
Have you figured this out. I was looking at add the DMR warehouse to all new parts. I was thinking on doing this via a data directive. below is my ideas I have not tested this but open to suggestions on this as well.
- To look at the part created date if <> today don’t process
- Add the DMR warehouse Of the site it was created to.
by calling the add new warehouse
- also take the default values
Are you looking to do this for all existing parts? (I assume that’s what the <> TODAY condition id for).
If so, what are you relying on to trigger the DD
DMT would be easier. to get the existing parts up to speed. Otherwise youd have to wait for something to change the Part record first.
I have already updated the existing parts via the DMT. Also I missed time lol. I should have say any new part created = today. Add the new part warehouse. Does that make sense?
@bradberkobien and @Jgemery this is the area you have been customizing this month!
See Jesse, I told you the idea of just adding them all isn’t bad either
He said it’d take too long, I had that idea too!
@hkeric.wci & @ckrusen I know this is an old thread but were you guys ever able to find the best way to go about this? Thanks,
There is a thread on “Auto-Assigning all warehouses to a part” (one of these days I’ll figure out to directly link to another post from here) where @gpayne quotes a BPM created by @markdamen that does this for warehouses. Adding sites just means a longer BPM.
Showoff (but I DID heart the post!)
Awesome Thank you @Ernie & @E102016 ! I’m reading it over now and seeing if I could utilize the attached BPM.
My preferred way to do this is to create a TEMPLATE part. This is a special part number that you use to DUPLICATE and create a new part. When you duplicate the part, it copies all the settings from all the associated tables for the template. This means you could have multiple templates for Purchased part, Manufactured part, or templates that are only in some but not other sites.
Part Numbers are “free” and you can add multiples as you need.
That’s a great suggestion Tim.
Actually, we used this “template” idea at one company to create entire template BOMs for a whole series of parts… we also programmed the product configurator to “duplicate” a part into a new part number automatically so that we could create a new stockable sub-assembly part which would then need modified. It gave a great way to create the bom as close as possible without a lot of manual work.
My biggest fear about using templates would be if someone fails to change the UOM fields.
I actually wish there wasn’t a default UOM Class
One trick is to have the template be marked as on-hold so that it cannot be used without unchecking the box… ALSO have a UOM Class defined on the template that should never be used “TBD” as an OTHER class… THEN have a BPM so that you cannot take it off hold with a TBD Other class… this would force the user to update the class.