Every time you make a change to the configurator, you would also have to make those same changes to any affected parts you've saved to the part master. Whether you decide to save each configuration as a part or not will very much depend on your environment.
We have about a dozen configurations that we've decided to make into part numbers for forecasting and stockability reasons. Everything else goes through as MTO or we'd have, potentially, thousands of part numbers to maintain. Challenges here are that those units "hide" in WIP until the sales order ships so no easy way to stock. Also decisions have to be made on how to handle RMAs. (If they can be salvaged, we usually disposition to a job and "remake" into a stocked refurb item.)
Good luck.
We have about a dozen configurations that we've decided to make into part numbers for forecasting and stockability reasons. Everything else goes through as MTO or we'd have, potentially, thousands of part numbers to maintain. Challenges here are that those units "hide" in WIP until the sales order ships so no easy way to stock. Also decisions have to be made on how to handle RMAs. (If they can be salvaged, we usually disposition to a job and "remake" into a stocked refurb item.)
Good luck.
--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "c.krusen1" <ckrusen1@...> wrote:
>
> Tim -
>
> Do you even need to push the configured part to the Part Master?
>
> If you want to ensure the most recent configuration definition is used, don't save it to the Part Master, but instead have it configured on each use. A part configured in a quote, can be pushed to an Order. Then during Job creation, the demand for the mfg'd part on the order will pull the details from the quote.
>
> If you're concerned that a definition might change between the time a part is quoted and the job is created, then you'll have to manage that outside of the configurator. I think you can re-run the configurator on a part from within Job management, and could "re-process the cfg using the new definition.
>
> Calvin
>
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Tim Vonderhaar" <tvonderhaar@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks again Calvin for continuing to help with this issue.
> >
> > 1) Given there doesn't appear to be a clean way to implement our first request, we will defer that for now and will just use separate configurators by themselves.
> >
> > 2) You are correct. I am concerned that there could be a disparity between the configurator definition and the results stored with a P/N. If the connection between the stored P/N and the configuator definition does not have any built in "sync" capability, any updates to the configuator definition will render the stored P/N out of date. We need to guarantee that this won't happen, nor do we want a user to have to remember to use the Engineering Workbench or some other manual method. Is it possible to not push a configured part into the part master any only keep the instance of the part local to the line item of the sales order? Is there any other option to address this?
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "c.krusen1" <ckrusen1@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Correction to my previos post.
> > >
> > > You can edit the MoM of a configurator generated part. Eng Workbench was only disabled because I hadn't checked out the revision.
> > >
> > > So it looks like you could re-configure the part (using the configurator), or use Eng Wrkbnch.
> > >
> > > Calvin
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "c.krusen1" <ckrusen1@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 1. I am pretty sure you can nest configurations. I've heard (but never experienced) that there are no safeguards from making a circular-reference (cfg#1 --> cfg#2 --> cfg#3 --> cfg#1). I've seen a topic in the documentation called "Inputless Configurator". Maybe that's what your lower level configurations need to be.
> > > >
> > > > Ok, I had a rather long explanation for your second question, but then started doubting myself. So instead of telling you something that might be incorrect, I'll just talk outloud.
> > > >
> > > > I'm assuming what your real concern is that a part created by the configurator - that ends up being saved to the Part file - will be redefined if at a later date a changed configurator definition, that results with the same P/N, but a different MoM. Is this your concern?
> > > >
> > > > A Part created with a configurator, doesn't have MoM, but has remembered all the configurator choices when it was created. If you Look at the part in the Part file, you'll see that the Engineering Workbench is disabled, while the Configurator is enabled.
> > > >
> > > > I'm guessing a lot of testing will be the only thing to answer your questions.
> > > >
> > > > Calvin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Tim Vonderhaar" <tvonderhaar@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the reply Calvin.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. I agree that we should keep things simple, but the question still remains, is it possible to launch a configured part from a configured part selection?
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Thanks for the clarification on revisions of a configurated part. However, I am still unclear as to how config changes may effect a part already in the product master that had been previously created from the configurator. Do we have to rerun the configurator to insure that a part already in the part master gets the updated items from the config or is there some magic that will run the configurator behind the scenes if a part previously created from the configuator is selected on a sales order line? I would never do this, but if the config rev is 'A' and the part master has a rev 'A' that was created from the configurator, then we update the configurator, keep the revision a 'A', now what the configurator will generate is different than what the part master has. How do I insure they stay the same? Should we not push a configured part to the part master? Is there some function we have to run on the line order (i.e. get details) that will get the update from the config?
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "c.krusen1" <ckrusen1@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. If it's your first configurator, keep it simple. We have 3 similar products (installed in water, earth or concrete) that are built nearly the same, but it was just easier to make a different configurator for each of the famaily members.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. Each Version of a part can only have one configurator setup (the pages, rules, etc...) version. Changes to the config setup can be done without changes to the Part rev. It's up to you to determine the level of revision control on the configurator setup.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Calvin
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Tim Vonderhaar" <tvonderhaar@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We are working through setting up our first configurator project and have run into a couple questions.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1) Is is possible to call a configured part from a configured part?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For example, we have a product family that has 10 or so similar products. Creating on giant configuration for the entire family will be a nightmare to maintain. Our thought would be to create a simple starter configured part that allows the user to select the first level (unit size) of the product family which will then call the specific configured part for the detail of that specific size.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2) We are confused by how to enforce the latest revision method will get used on a sales line.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When a part and it's method is generated by the configurator, it gets associated with the line and allows a job to be created via the scheduler. It also appears the part and it's method is also pushed into the part master under the current revision of configuration. For the sake of the example, say the revision is A. Now say time elapses and the configurator gets updated a few times and it's now up to revision C. I understand that if I run the configurator again, it will generate the part along with the revision C method. What I am unclear of is, if a user does not use the configurator decides to use the part from the part master, am I correct is assuming it's revision will only be A? How do we insure we get the current configurator revision?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Tim
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>