@John_Mitchell I saw that, GUEST. I did not know who submitted that.
Again, I’m a sucker. You got my vote. Networking is everything.
I honestly do like the idea, though.
And you can take you vote away if they mark it as unlikely…
1 Like
I added two just now and would appreciate feedback - especially if I’m totally missing something 
and should fix/delete them.
https://epicor-manufacturing.ideas.aha.io/ideas/ERP-I-228
https://epicor-manufacturing.ideas.aha.io/ideas/ERP-I-229
1 Like
I have to say my impression of Epicor’s responsiveness is 100% better than 2.5 years ago when we started this journey. I’ve gone from cynic to “one day I’d like to sell this stuff”
2 Likes
I spoke with a support rep today who said that they are looking at these ideas for Epicor 11.
2 Likes
Thanks for the post, @timshuwy! I missed your post previously, but just found out about this when I submitted a feature request to support.
Here’s mine (peak / historical user license tracking), if anyone wants to spend any of their precious votes 
: https://epicor-manufacturing.ideas.aha.io/ideas/ERP-I-240
As per these previous posts:
Tracking Epicor licence usage
E10 Sessions/License Usage - #2 by Bart_Elia
Gotta throw one of my ideas in here. For resetting the LastCCDate for kicking off a cycle counting program.
https://epicor-manufacturing.ideas.aha.io/ideas/ERP-I-235
@Graemer I know you’ll have my back…
You know I do! 
I think an idea that is needed is for ALL the Problems that have been accepted to be reviewed and put on some kind of schedule!
I bet the number of those would dwarf the list things on the ideas site. I like the ideas site so that others can review and vote but it is a little overwhelming to look at them all.
It would help if the sorting and filtering worked properly too. Not Epicor’s platform though so not sure how much can be done about that.
Right, especially for ones that have been “accepted” for years, like the LastCCDate, um, feature.
Yes - soon after we went live I noticed that it might be a good idea to monitor failed scheduled tasks on the system monitor. The problem is that blank reports are also considered a “failure”.
I make a suggestion to have a 3rd status for the system monitor so that IT could focus on the reports or jobs that truly had a problem and it was accepted. The analyst I corresponded with said this was a feature on Vantage or an older system but for some reason was not available on E10. That was 4 years ago and no response.
2 Likes
If I recall task agent is already in the pipeline for rebuild to make monitoring it and it’s failures far more friendly. Don’t quote me on that, but something in the back of my head tells me that.
Joshua;
Yes, you are right. Someone mentioned at the 2019 conference that they had to do that “read soon now”. I agree that the system monitor needs a rebuild.
Are we allowed to shamelessly plug our ideas here and beg for votes?
https://epicor-manufacturing.ideas.aha.io/ideas/KNTC-I-2340
There should be a way to tell MRP to relax a little… just a little.
Kind of like the Reschedule Out and In fields for PO Change Suggestions.
So here is my situation. I have 3 of part X on hand.
There is demand in the near future for 4.
I have a released job due just after the demand.
MRP sees that there is more demand than supply and that the job won’t get done in time. So it kicks out another job for the a whole production run. And based on the Receive Time on the part the MRP job won’t get done until after the job we already have released.
Now if that isn’t bad enough, that “bonus” job that MRP made is kicking out New PO Suggestions to Purchasing for the whole MOQ on the raw materials.
Our shop floor managers have to research every MRP job they see. They don’t feel like they can trust anything.
Worse, our Buyers have to research every PO Suggestion they get. They don’t feel like they can trust anything.
Is there some kind of feature we could use that would make MRP jobs look forward “X” number of days to see if we are going to be OK before it kicks out an MRP job.
All of that functionality already exists in Epicor. I would recommend getting a consultant in who knows planning inside and out to help. Changing some of the fences and other options should fix it.
I’ve been upside down and around the block with Epicare about this. They told me to submit an idea.
Do you know somebody? I’ve had some pretty mediocre experiences with consultants.
I would look for an APICS consultant or something similar. The person does not need to know Epicor, just someone who really understands MRP, Planning, Scheduling, etc.
In and Out Deltas are key here.
2 Likes
In and Out Deltas ? Where are these?
Do you mean:
- PartPlant.ReschedOutDelta
- PartPlant.ReschedInDelta
It was my understanding that these fields only apply to “change” suggestions.
Part Maintenance-Planning Fields
## Reschedule In Delta
This value is used by MRP to prevent generating expedite suggestions.
Example:
Job 123 on Feb 24 for 10 pcs
SO 456 on Feb 21 for 10 pcs
The job due dates can only be changed if the change is more than a week away.
Without a value specified for the Reschedule In Delta parameter MRP generates an expedite suggestion for Job 123 to move it from Feb 24 to Feb 21. With the job that cannot be moved the engineer needs to ignore the expedite suggestion which can get annoying. With a Reschedule In Delta of 5 there will be no expedite suggestion generated.
## Reschedule Out Delta
This value is used by MRP to prevent generating postpone suggestions.
Yeah that keeps a majority of the noise down. Next is days of supply. Then following that is limiting how far out MRP runs for and cutting it off to a shorter time frame. It looks like you are running jobs Make Direct that in it of itself is going to create a lot of noise as it’s running everything 1 to 1.
Your description of the problem sounds like it’s trying to create an MRP job for a release that already has a supply link for it. That can’t be the case though so I assumed you were talking about overall change suggestions.
1 Like