Since going live on E10 three weeks ago, we are seeing Method Tracker strange behavior where some parts are not showing lower levels, where they used to in 905702a. I haven’t been able to figure out why some show and some don’t but can see it used to show in E9 and now does not in E10. The culprit parts are checked view as assembly.
Anyone else have any thoughts on when the see the lower levels in method tracker for a part in E10 vs when they don’t?
We are multi-site, but these parts have same revision plant.
Did you check to make sure that 38507C115 has a revision in your new system? Maybe something got dropped in the transfer? It’s not all parts right? Just a few showing up here and there?
Also, just out of curiosity, I’ve seen this field in the list, but have never seen what it does. Does that part that the ExpandTree field checked?
Thanks for your suggestions. I do indeed have part revision in for all of them and Expand tree is checked for all.
One thing I’ve noticed however, is that all of the parts that cannot be expanded happen to be manufactured in another plant than the plant I’ve opened method tracker in…
Argh! E10 has seriously screwed up the way that it treats different plant manufactured/assembled parts. First we couldn’t see the full bill of materials report for lower level parts mfrd in diff plant, then we couldn’t pull details on parent when there’s a phantom part with diff part rev plant from parent, and NOW we can’t see the fully expanded method in method tracker for lower level parts mfrd in different plant from parent.
I gotta say going from 905702a to 10.1.600.5 has been mostly a downgrade for us so far…I’m really not seeing much benefit to date.
Unfortunately it just looks like your caught in one of those battles of other companies want to see it a certain way than yours does. I think other companies probably have plants separated want them totally separate. They don’t care what goes into it, it’s just like a purchased part. Having all that extra information is a problem for them. Plus, different plants might make the same thing differently based on machinery and other factors, so clear separation is better.
If you don’t mind me asking, if you want to see all of it together all of the time, why have separate plants? (maybe it’s not all of the time though I guess) If you just had the plants as different resources, that would be enough separation, at least on the production side. Maybe not the accounting side though?
The real problem here is that the program worked one way in E9 and now has been broken for us in E10. It really stinks! Epicor should have provided a configuration option at a minimum. To top it off we have these controlled orders that MUST show every part that goes into a bill of material.
If we had our 3 plants setup as one then we’d have job resources/machines available to all plants, not where they’re located, how would we know to transfer parts between plants? we use transfer orders now, we’d have inventory all as one big number instead of per plant, labor charges one plant, and then there’s all of the other accounting done on a per plant basis.
