That looks perfect, provided that ‘Main warehouse’ is a valid Warehouse assigned to the part (which I don’t see how it couldn’t be).
and your Opr 10 is the Labor Type either ‘Time & Qty’ or ‘Qty Only’?
(BTW - to clarify the timing of backflush from earlier, it is immediate following each Report Qty or End Activity with a Qty)
I would go with 100%. Caught me out when our team decided to stop using backflush operations but we’ve live since JAN and all parts are backflush and I’ve never had to run the backflush process.
Longshot but you don’t have to approve labor via Time & Expense entry?
Interesting thought…
Just throwing this out there, but when you complete the job for the very top assembly, do your parts backflush then? We don’t really use subassemblies so we have not tested them but it’s just a thought.
For us, we have always specified a backflush bin on the resource group level and the Part Plant Backflush flag is true. They backflush regardless if Labor Type is Time & Qty or Qty Only.
I will follow this thread - I will need to lick this problem as well, we are going to rely on station-by-station backflushing now and we never used to do that.
Backflushing has always been inconsistent to me. Like, it works great 99.99% but that 0.01%, I just don’t get it.
I do have this to share about scheduling:
We actually do use Epicor to approve labor via Time and Expense entry. The foremen have to approve entries, so its done fairly quickly (every day). The example Im using is approved.
Its set for Time & Quantity.
Main WH is the valid warehouse and its on the part.
Can you do this screenshot again but with the operation that has materials 140 & 150 attached to it
No they do not. They mostly only backflush during the Job Closing process when someone checks the backflush box. It does seem to work when someone goes into Job Cost Adjustment to fix their employee’s labor. So if a guy was supposed to complete 2 and only completed 1 and his foreman goes in there and adds the extra and marks it complete, they actually issue. Not sure why.
Just need a bit more detail. Can you expand that 10 OP: MT10FAB. You should see something like this:
@SPhillips That does sound like the Labor record that is being created from the Report Qty or End Activity is either not fully submitted or approved.
In Job tracker when reviewing the Labor Transactions for the operation can you confirm that the Approved Date is populated and what the Status value for each transaction is?
Were material 140 & 150 added after the OP was completed? Odd gaps in your material sequence numbers as well e.g. 10, 20 & 30 missing and also 160 missing.
Those materials were not added later. Not sure why the gaps, that’s not typical, but I am guessing they made a change to the materials at some point before it was released, as there is nothing in the audit log about deleting a large section of that ASM structure.
I will defer to others on this thread as we’ve only been live a few months and I’ve only seen the one issue in the MES Work Q.
Regards
@Rick_Bird I know that is the official position, but I have had that enabled for a decade and backflush.
My understanding is that with FIFO Layers enabled it prevents backflushing into a negative qty.
What I don’t understand (ignorance) is the reasoning for FIFO Layers being enabled affecting backflushing at all, especially if you aren’t using the FIFO Costing method…
