I am working with a client and they are creating batch jobs. What they are finding is that a POTF is created once the job is batched. According to Epicor there are a few reasons:
In Epicor ERP and Kinetic, the creation of “odd” or unexpected part numbers within batched jobs typically stems from Part-on-the-Fly (POTF) functionality, which allows for manufacturing items not defined in the Part Master. When batching, this often creates specialized, one-time-use part numbers, such as combined raw material descriptions (e.g., 0125_6061SF) or temporary identifiers for subassemblies, especially in fabrication processes like laser cutting, painting, or plating.
Causes for “Odd” Part Numbers in Batched Jobs
- Part-on-the-Fly (POTF) Usage: POTF permits users to create a part directly within a job, quote, or order without first establishing it in the Part Master.
- Batching Method of Manufacture (MOM): When batching, users often create a “phantom” or temporary part number to represent the combined input material (e.g., a full sheet of metal) which is then broken down into smaller, demand-linked parts.
- Co-Parts/Co-Products: Batching frequently utilizes Co-Parts to define a single job that produces multiple distinct items. If not managed properly, these can appear as unexpected, generated, or un-named parts in the system.
- “Make Direct” Material: If a non-stock material is added to a job as “Make Direct,” it can trigger the generation of a temporary part, which must be shipped directly from that job.
Common Scenarios
- Laser/Paint/Plating: Creating a temporary part number to represent raw material (e.g., “Sheet Stock” or “Sq Inch of Paint”) which is then consumed by individual, final part-number jobs.
- Rework Jobs: Using _RW suffixes or temporary part numbers to handle items requiring rework.
The part itself has no co-parts, so that leaves out that possibility, maybe. They do use co-parts but the part in question has no co-parts. I am leaning towards the MOM andmaybe there is a subassembly that is perhaps non-stock so it is creating a make direct? This is really odd and to be honest I haven’t seen this before.