I feel like this is a very old problem but wondering if anybody has come up with any creative solutions (assuming its just a matter of time until support tells me this is working as designed).
I have a part that is set up in 3 different sites
There is a shared warehouse that belongs to one of the sites, and is shared with the other two sites.
If I transfer inventory from one of the regular warehouses into the shared warehouse, that inventory appears to exist in all 3 sites simultaneously. This is a problem because it overstates the onhand inventory.
Yes it overstates the inventory in part tracker, part quantity tracker, and time phase, so basically anybody they would be looking to find out how much is on hand, they would see the wrong answer.
Does it extend beyond that though? Have you tried running MRP or something else to see if the system says you actually have enough to fulfill the demand even though the quantity is wrong?
No but that’s an interesting thought. I can see the PartBin and the PartWhse records are correct, so assuming MRP doesn’t contain the same bug as the UI it should give the right answer.
Transferring inventory from one site to another without the headache of transfer orders.
Transfer orders do not allow for the fact that you may receive a different quantity than you shipped, are tremendously tedious to manage due to having to constantly switch between sites to do anything, and don’t come with any trackers, packing slips, or other tools you would expect to have to be able to manage them properly. You also can’t unreceive or unship a transfer order, and there are a lot of bugs where they just don’t close properly, the inventory seems to get stuck, etc. I have entered about 15 ideas about how to improve transfer orders on the ideas site but it seems pretty clear Epicor is not interested in making them usable.
Oh, I have seen the pain of Transfer Orders…and Intercompany. Both are challenging. Intercompany transfers fall off the books between shipment and receipt - or did, not sure if that was fixed - it would be related to Incoterm rules.
I’m not sure how MRP would know how to look at a shared warehouse. I’d rather have it non-nettable than available to all! Do bins belong a site then?
The question is those 10 pieces that are being transferred, because none of the tables tell you which plant they are actually in right now.
MRP suggests purchasing 1 for the first site which would make sense if the 10 in the transfer warehouse still belong to the first site. And 39 for the second site, which again, would make sense if the 10 in the transfer warehouse belong to the second site. So its Schrodinger’s inventory, it exists in 2 sites at the same time.
And this is now rejected. According to Epicor, its correct that the on hand quantity INCLUDES the non-nettable quantity, and that it would be an enhancement for the on hand quantity to calculate the quantity that is actually, you know, ON HAND. Despite the fact that non-nettable has NEVER EVER EVER counted as on hand. But hey, now that’s the way it is so too bad.
I was going to say that if the Grid View allowed the Non-Nettable field to be shown it would help but OOB it doesnt. Its as if EPICOR want you to change your business processes in the way you label your non-nettable bins rather than giving an option of either showing or not showing non-nettable in your on hand values.
It makes no sense at all because non-nettable and on hand are separate values in part tracker. So who thought it would be a great idea to have different values in part quantity tracker and label them the same thing?
Not that it helps, but we reported the inventory issue long ago and because it was working as designed, we ended up abandoning shared warehouses and started manually entering transfer orders. Never found a fix
