DMT BOM add 1 part

Good Afternoon Epicor Folks,

We are a manufacturing operation and sometimes we buy painted parts and sometimes Subcontract the paint operation out. Our paint specs currently reside in a PDF of an Engineering drawing. I am trying to find a place for this in Epicor. Internally we are considering

  1. Separate Part Class
    Pro: Fast and easy
    Con: Multiple buyers could have parts to be painted so would have to have yet another class to put each buyers parts in, Custom Reports,Dashboard etc to gather Data

  2. Add to BOM as a Part ( most if not all the Paint Specs are already assigned a Part Number in Epicor)
    Pro: Good inbuilt visibility, What rev part was painted at and when, Inbuilt Where Used, Availability etc.
    Con: A lot of Parts to add paint spec to BOM ( looking at DMT now, first few attempts in Pilot are failing( Record added but cant find where added to…)

  3. Custom (UD) field to hold the paint Spec.
    Pro: Easier to implement, DMT or UD Dashboard.
    Con: Same as 1 above, Custom Reports,Dashboard etc to gather Data

My preference is option 2 as it offers more ‘out of the box’ functionality with Epicor. I am just struggling with getting a template together that works.

Feel free to agree/disagree with my choice of options. All comments/suggestions are appreciated.

I have used DMT recently to upload Sales Order Lines so I am familiar with its workings. The latest and greatest update to 10.2.600.7 was this past weekend. Am I facing another possible DMT breakage between updates ??? DMT gets updated with the Epicor Update as far as I can tell, we are DT Cloud.

Thank you all in advance


For #2, are you talking about making a Part for they painted item, consisting of the unpainted part + the sub-contract of painting?

PDF attachment, my it can be added in the part master.
If you were able to user the part attributes to record the main specs. Then these details can be made visible in the job materials through zone BAQ.

Hi Calvin, re the #2 option, We have Part1RAW, and Part1. The BOM for Part1 has Part1Raw and a subcontract operation to paint it. I was asking if the Paint Spec should be added as a part to Part1

I am not familiar with Zone BAQ’s but will look into it. Thank you for the idea.

That’s what I would do. as it is information for the state of what Part1 should be when when used in a higher level of another BOM.

Is Part1 completely (and uniquely) specified? Meaning that every single item of Part1 would ideally be indistinguishable from another. And that a Part1 that is purchased (already painted to spec), is indistinguishable from a Part1 made from sending out a Part1RAW for outside painting.

Nothing like "Part1 … but in Red this time."

1 Like

That is correct, Part1 will always be Yellow. We actually have a part that is PartA_RAW that goes into a Part123 and Part456. Part123 is Orange and Part 456 is Yellow. ( has to do with International color requirements. )

I’m not seeing the problem with the BOM and DMT. Are you having a problem using DMT to make a multilevel BOM?

And are you really trying to make/update a BOM? Or are you trying to modify the MOM of Job(or Quote)?

Trying to Add to the BOM. Just found what could be the problem. The BOM did not have an operation. It ( DMT) did not throw any errors. I tested with a different part that did have an operation and the BOM had the added Material. I guess that is 1 of the quirks about DMT ( or my lack of understanding) .

Part of our discussions are to change the part Class for the part that is to be painted i.e. Part Class Yellow , Part Class Red Etc… I guess that is the easy way out, all we use the classes for is to group commodities together( Fab parts, Hydraulics, labels , springs etc. ) and have a buyer responsible for several classes ( not my doing… I inherited it. ).

Thanks for hangin in there, I always appreciate your knowledge and understanding.


Just had a similar problem, and wanted to put this here for future reference (perhaps even my own): for me the solution was to match the column order of BOM add DMT I had run successfully much earlier (on a previous year, and on Epicor 10.1.500 actually!)

Here was the column order that worked, and not sure which of these columns is truly necessary to have in this particular order:


That ended up not being it at all. We were on DMT for Epicor 10.2.400 and I reverted back to DMT and things worked beautifully again.

Thanks Adam

We are on Epicor Cloud, 10.2.600.4, DMT to match, 10.2.600.7. No control over what we get with updates.

I will keep the field order in mind. The project for this has been put on hold but still good to know if it gets reinstated.