Hi Guys,
We have manufactured parts where sometimes we need to repack and need to issue the material to the job on the same code as the finished product or we may use some spares from a previous job and assign them to the job to consume them and the cost.
In the past we have been able to do this but now when ever i try to assign a material to the job that matches the finished part i am getting the below error.
Has anyone come across this / know how to resolve?
Do not have solution just some thoughts:
IMHO, a part should never be a child of itself (infinite loop scenario) same PN and rev… I could see rework being applied and the job resulting in the same output PN with some repair, but not a material of itself. Does this really seem sensible?
I agree with all of that.
We’ve even reworked a serial-tracked part, and there is a way to reassign the serial to parent or something like that.
My first thought was “pull quantity,” but that’s for subassemblies. This probably is not.
Maybe you could mark an existing (old) job for this as a template job instead? That might help a little.
This was my only thought as well, however I would not like to encourage poor choices 
I don’t understand that - you made the point before I did that there is a place for this in a job for rework. I thought we agreed there. How else would you repair something?
Well, OK, to be a purist, the most right way is as a QA rejection:
This is discrepant inventory.
How did it end up this way - was it returned on an RMA? Or is it inexplicably found in inventory as bad? (I’m not mocking - I can relate to that…)
You really should:
This is the same as before, just with more work. 
This confuses me. So the part is perfectly good but you still are going to put it through a job again?
Why can’t you just leave it in inventory? Is it make-direct for a sales order or something?
We do agree. He was in Eng WB from the screenshot my assumption he is trying to apply same to a MoM which should not be allowed for the reason I stated in my first post.
Yes, I have consumed a serialized part as well using a base trailer from a prior model year as it was never sold nor did the parts leave the facility, but it would need reserialized to a newer model year by consuming the components of the original trailer as a part component of the new job to bring along the prior costing of the original job and component assembly within the rework to a newer model product.
Yes, I have RMA’s a serial as well to be reworked and something repaired or adjusted to fit correctly, fix paint issues, etc and reused the serial but this did not change the PN just added labor and other materials to the job of repairing the RMA’d original.
VERY MUCH AGREE!
Bad practice here there are financial implications you are not providing for by having the child part be the parent at some point … HOW can you define the cost of this part???
As this goes you could use a part like I said earlier to build a newer one or rework to be a repaired one (in a JOB only not as part of a defined MoM), but again how would you cost this as a child of itself?
But alas, we do exactly that in a real (physical) world scenario.
We make plastic film. We regrind and feed our same product right back in to the part.
As for Epicor, the trimmings / scrap are converted into a different part, on a different job, and we consume that part back in. Not necessarily what I’d recommend for this scenario, but just throwing it out there.
Yes but not the FULL original parent part only partial as you converted to pellets (with different PN maybe costed by weight or volume vs SQFT/SQYD or even thickness)? You are not reusing the same parent at that point it has been altered and is no longer that same parent. (Just sayin)
Even though it started as the parent it has been altered into a new part…
We do both. But we pretend it’s been converted to pellets in either case.
Right but doing that even if you are not converting the part back into pellets or w/e you are not really using the parent only a partial/scrap portion of it which would enable costing differently and the other job would allow for the transit time from trim to reloading back into hopper as labor presumably to enable conversion back into pellets or however you reuse the original you are then melting it (now it really is no longer the parent still … as the parent was a sheet this is a viscous flowing material) no longer the parent part it has undergone an operation from trimmings/scrap to flowing polymers it is no longer the parent part 
6 of one, a half dozen of the other lol.
Yes, that was my point though. In the physical world, and to the workers on the floor, part comes out one end, and sometimes goes right back in the start. They see a distinction without a difference.
Us more analytical types certainly see it.
Agree
I keep insisting to others that these details matter otherwise why not use a hammer to sink a screw? 
I do feel for them as I know even though it might have just not had the correct mil thickness or sizing and they need to rework it by feeding it through the machine again there was a process to use electricity and labor to rework that parent in that case I could see it being also a smaller quantity of the original every time too But sometimes we need to see outside the tunnels many others peer through to find another perspective to see the other details around and account for things those floor managers and bean counters are going to want to know about for costing and efficiency and KPIs.
Ah - thats what it is, we have been able to do it on the job in the past but not when changing the method.
That makes sense now.
Hi Jason,
The parts could need repacking for a number of reasons, sometimes its based on customer requirements, sometimes when its been packed incorrectly previously (admittedly this should/could be rework).
On our jobs we will have a job to produce say 1000pcs but they make 1010pcs from the yield of the extrusion. They would then pack the 1000pcs into boxes of 100 and store on stock as 10 boxes of 100pcs (all lot tracked) - The 10pcs would then go into a spares bin which could be used on the next job as the customer will only accept boxed quantities and obviously we would not want to scrap them if they are good.
To me, this looks like you’ve done a Job Receipt to Inventory transaction, so these parts are now in stock. There is no (Epicor) need for them to be issued to a job, they can be shipped directly from stock.
This will probably require a change in your process, and quite possibly a change in how you create your shipping documentation (and perhaps the format of the shipping documentation itself), but if the parts are already in inventory they should not be issued to the job.
As @CSmith mentioned above, your finance folks are probably having conniptions over this.
The problem is, he’s not REALLY shipping the final part, he’s shipping a “Pack” of the final part. He put 10 of the finished extruded part in stock from the previous job, but he needs to issue them back to a new job so they can be packed in a box of 100 prior to shipment.
I’m not going to say it is the RIGHT way to do it, but in my mind the Box of 100 should be its own part number… and the extruded part would be a component. Then you can make some on the job and issue others as a raw material part.
Then you’re shipping (10) boxes of 100 from the job not (1000) of the actual extruded parts.
Amen to that. Shop Floor personnel should be making parts… NOT thinking about how to document them. The thinking part is OUR job, preferably beforehand.
Most of us are on the “operations” side, and look at “Parts” in the “quantity” sense. But there is also the “cost” sense, and that sense is just as much required for proper data flow.
Agreed.
If there is value in “stor[ing] it in boxes, with little yellow tags on every one” (anyone?), then it’s a job to stock under that other part number.
If you’d rather box it on the fly (at shipment time) with indirect labor, it’s a sales kit, but it still needs its own number. You don’t have to inventory that number, but you’d sell that number.
