For purchasing, we have a BPM (Data Directive) on POHeader that sets the address when the PO Header is first created. For us, I think we could just go off the Plant that the PO was generated in, which pulls from a UD field on the Buyer. You could get fancier with that logic I suppose. Again, back to process changes, we ended up changing our process by ordering everything to the one physical plant in this town in almost all cases, and then having stuff for that plant transferred over (we have a truck go over with sheet metal every day anyhow). Ended up saving enough on consolidated shipping to outweigh the little extra overhead of getting stuff to the other plant. Your results may vary.
We are in the implementation phase of Epicor 9.05.702A. We currently have 4 manufacturing facilities within a 40 mile radius. We move a considerable amount of WIP between the facilities. We originally were looking at a multi-plant setup but had second thoughts when we discovered we would have to set up new work orders each time the WIP moved to another facility. We decided to go to single plant / multi-warehouse with a single router. As we get deeper into understanding the software, we continue to have to "code" work centers, operations, etc. to the warehouse. We are wondering if someone has streamlined the WIP movement between the facilities to where the multi-plant might be the better option. Now is the time for us to make any corrections in our direction.
Thanks in advance for any feedback / suggestions!
I do think Multi-Plant is a better way to go as plants are better set up to deal with operations and inter plant transfers can be tracked at the truck level if you wish. It will be more set up at first but will run smoother after it is all set up.
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
From: tank.connection@...
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 05:55:04 -0800
Subject: [Vantage] Multi-plant vs. Single plant / multi-warehous
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
From: tank.connection@...
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 05:55:04 -0800
Subject: [Vantage] Multi-plant vs. Single plant / multi-warehous
<div id="ygrps-yiv-1870310396ecxygrp-text">
<p><br>We are in the implementation phase of Epicor 9.05.702A. We currently have 4 manufacturing facilities within a 40 mile radius. We move a considerable amount of WIP between the facilities. We originally were looking at a multi-plant setup but had second thoughts when we discovered we would have to set up new work orders each time the WIP moved to another facility. We decided to go to single plant / multi-warehouse with a single router. As we get deeper into understanding the software, we continue to have to "code" work centers, operations, etc. to the warehouse. We are wondering if someone has streamlined the WIP movement between the facilities to where the multi-plant might be the better option. Now is the time for us to make any corrections in our direction.<br><br><br>Thanks in advance for any feedback / suggestions! <br><br>
</div>
<div style="height:0px;color:rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div>
We have 5 plants running now. The first plant was a pain with all the inventory and open jobs that had to be moved. I would say the deeper you do the single plant and multi warehouse
the larger the project will become to convert.
Users did have to get used Transfer orders and accepting them, also buying to specific plants as well. But all this is just a user not being used to it.
One thing I have an issue is with MRP (905.607A) have not been able to test on 702A.
If Plant A has TO suggestions for Plant B, then when plant B MRP starts running, it deletes those suggestions.
I was able to work around by running two separate MRP's , but now Plant A, B and Plant E all have Transfer orders and one of the plants is not keeping them. I already talked to Epicor about this and they had no idea. I can make it that all my plants
run separate MRP, but then one of my plants wont get the correct Job Suggestions. So it is either I lose some TO Suggestions or Job Suggestions.
As I mentioned, I have not verified this on 702A, but I hope I will within a month or two.
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [vantage@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of Kent Rooen [krrooen25@...]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 6:40 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Multi-plant vs. Single plant / multi-warehous
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 6:40 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Multi-plant vs. Single plant / multi-warehous
I do think Multi-Plant is a better way to go as plants are better set up to deal with operations and inter plant transfers can be tracked at the truck level if you wish. It will be more set up at first but will run smoother after it is all set up.
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
From: tank.connection@...
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 05:55:04 -0800
Subject: [Vantage] Multi-plant vs. Single plant / multi-warehous
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
From: tank.connection@...
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 05:55:04 -0800
Subject: [Vantage] Multi-plant vs. Single plant / multi-warehous
We are in the implementation phase of Epicor 9.05.702A. We currently have 4 manufacturing facilities within a 40 mile radius. We move a considerable amount of WIP between the facilities. We originally were looking at a multi-plant setup but had second thoughts
when we discovered we would have to set up new work orders each time the WIP moved to another facility. We decided to go to single plant / multi-warehouse with a single router. As we get deeper into understanding the software, we continue to have to "code"
work centers, operations, etc. to the warehouse. We are wondering if someone has streamlined the WIP movement between the facilities to where the multi-plant might be the better option. Now is the time for us to make any corrections in our direction.
Thanks in advance for any feedback / suggestions!
We have 3 plants running and use one MRP run nightly to cover all three plants. We are on 9.05.607B. We get transfer orders as expected and jobs / purchasing to satisfy said transfer order, if no QOH in supplying plant. We would like to try and use make to job across plants a bit more, but have noticed that it is a bit squirrely in that job 1 (plant 1) material better get financially closed before the job 1 part gets transferred to job 2 (plant 2) that calls for make direct on the material from job 1.
I have read others nightmares wishing that they had setup for multiplant but had not and find it very hard to change once in.
Nancy
Thanks for the feedback. Our implementation journey continues!
Ron Brown
Process Manager
Tank Connection
3609 N. 16th St.
Parsons, KS 67357
Office: 620-423-3010 ext. 158
Email: rbrown@...<mailto:rbrown@...>
[cid:tcaffiliates_20080cdca0]<http://www.tankconnection.com>
[cid:linkedin1bc106] <http://www.linkedin.com/company/tank-connection-affiliate-group> [cid:facebook4bf1a6] <http://facebook.com/tankconnection> [cid:twitter68fffa] <http://twitter.com/TankConnection> [cid:youtube7f7c7f] <http://youtube.com/user/TankConnection>
________________________________
NOTICE: This email and any attachments are considered confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender as soon as possible and delete this email. If you are not the intended addressee, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited by law.
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nhoyt111@...
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:05 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Multi-plant vs. Single plant / multi-warehous
We have 3 plants running and use one MRP run nightly to cover all three plants. We are on 9.05.607B. We get transfer orders as expected and jobs / purchasing to satisfy said transfer order, if no QOH in supplying plant. We would like to try and use make to job across plants a bit more, but have noticed that it is a bit squirrely in that job 1 (plant 1) material better get financially closed before the job 1 part gets transferred to job 2 (plant 2) that calls for make direct on the material from job 1.
I have read others nightmares wishing that they had setup for multiplant but had not and find it very hard to change once in.
Nancy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Ron Brown
Process Manager
Tank Connection
3609 N. 16th St.
Parsons, KS 67357
Office: 620-423-3010 ext. 158
Email: rbrown@...<mailto:rbrown@...>
[cid:tcaffiliates_20080cdca0]<http://www.tankconnection.com>
[cid:linkedin1bc106] <http://www.linkedin.com/company/tank-connection-affiliate-group> [cid:facebook4bf1a6] <http://facebook.com/tankconnection> [cid:twitter68fffa] <http://twitter.com/TankConnection> [cid:youtube7f7c7f] <http://youtube.com/user/TankConnection>
________________________________
NOTICE: This email and any attachments are considered confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender as soon as possible and delete this email. If you are not the intended addressee, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited by law.
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nhoyt111@...
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:05 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Multi-plant vs. Single plant / multi-warehous
We have 3 plants running and use one MRP run nightly to cover all three plants. We are on 9.05.607B. We get transfer orders as expected and jobs / purchasing to satisfy said transfer order, if no QOH in supplying plant. We would like to try and use make to job across plants a bit more, but have noticed that it is a bit squirrely in that job 1 (plant 1) material better get financially closed before the job 1 part gets transferred to job 2 (plant 2) that calls for make direct on the material from job 1.
I have read others nightmares wishing that they had setup for multiplant but had not and find it very hard to change once in.
Nancy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I actually have the exact same problem with WIP moving between different plants that are all within 15 mies or so. Management is adamant that we set up Epicor as multi-plant which causes lots of problems when a part needs to be processed in more than one plant.
We are about to put a plating plant into the mix rather than use subcontrated plating. For parts that used to have one MOM with a subcontract plating operation, I now need three different MOMs, Three different part numbers, and two transfer orders to accomplish the same thing. This is all because Epicor will not allow the use of a resource from a different plant. All my complaints over the last 6 months have fallen on deaf ears and the answer I get is "that's how Epicor is supposed to work" or "only me and maybe one other customer has a problem with this so it's nothing that they plan to fix".
I've even asked custom programming to quote on allowing me to somehow use resources from another plant on a MOM but there answer was something like "that's base functionality of Epicor so they cannot understand how they could give me what I want.
One thing we did think about and are going to test somehow is to create resources in plant 'A' that are actually in Plant 'B'. Plant 'B' would then have to log in to Epicor as being in Plant 'A' and report labor against these Plant 'A' OPs with the faux Plant 'B' resource Groups. I actually did this and it kind of works for parts requiring a CMM inspection OP since we only have CMMs currently in one plant.
If I can somehow isolate these costs for accounting maybe by also creating faux departments in Plant 'A' for these faux resources, the task of getting them to the right plant with an accounting transaction of some kind (can you tell I'm not an accountant?) that would be infinetely less trouble that the way it works now. Any ideas here would be greatly appreciated.
Oh, I should also mention that we have the Maintenance module too and this screws that up as well. Our Maintenance Techs can work in all 4 plants but since the Techs themselves are the Maintenance Resources, I have to make them resources in each of the 4 plants which means I cannot really schedule them properly amung other things.
Greg
Greg,
We feel your pain….we have the exact same issue and we are multi-company / multiplant as well and have received the same answers you have.
It may be the case, that it is base functionality, but that doesn’t mean that Epicor cannot come up with something where resources are actually used in a multitude of ways. We have two paint booths at one plant that the other plants use. I think it is stupid and short sided on Epicor’s part to think companies do NOT utilize their resources in this manner.
Unfortunately I am glad we are not alone out there with this issue. Maybe you and I can get together and figure out a plan of attack to get this to work not just for us but for I am sure, a number of other customers.
Manasa
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of gclauser@...
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 2:17 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Multi-plant vs. Single plant / multi-warehous
I actually have the exact same problem with WIP moving between different plants that are all within 15 mies or so. Management is adamant that we set up Epicor as multi-plant which causes lots of problems when a part needs to be processed in more than one plant.
We are about to put a plating plant into the mix rather than use subcontrated plating. For parts that used to have one MOM with a subcontract plating operation, I now need three different MOMs, Three different part numbers, and two transfer orders to accomplish the same thing. This is all because Epicor will not allow the use of a resource from a different plant. All my complaints over the last 6 months have fallen on deaf ears and the answer I get is "that's how Epicor is supposed to work" or "only me and maybe one other customer has a problem with this so it's nothing that they plan to fix".
I've even asked custom programming to quote on allowing me to somehow use resources from another plant on a MOM but there answer was something like "that's base functionality of Epicor so they cannot understand how they could give me what I want.
One thing we did think about and are going to test somehow is to create resources in plant 'A' that are actually in Plant 'B'. Plant 'B' would then have to log in to Epicor as being in Plant 'A' and report labor against these Plant 'A' OPs with the faux Plant 'B' resource Groups. I actually did this and it kind of works for parts requiring a CMM inspection OP since we only have CMMs currently in one plant.
If I can somehow isolate these costs for accounting maybe by also creating faux departments in Plant 'A' for these faux resources, the task of getting them to the right plant with an accounting transaction of some kind (can you tell I'm not an accountant?) that would be infinetely less trouble that the way it works now. Any ideas here would be greatly appreciated.
Oh, I should also mention that we have the Maintenance module too and this screws that up as well. Our Maintenance Techs can work in all 4 plants but since the Techs themselves are the Maintenance Resources, I have to make them resources in each of the 4 plants which means I cannot really schedule them properly amung other things.
Greg
Now I’m really starting to get a headache………. I think I started the dialogue on this question. We are in the early stages of implementation. We would technically be classified as multi-company / multi-plant / multi-warehouse that have duplicate resources at four various locations – all within a 40 mile radius. We currently move a considerable amount of WIP between the facilities to take advantage of the duplicate resources as well as take advantage of unique resources … i.e. paint line. We initially thought about the single plant / multi-warehouse approach in order to use one work order to move the WIP between facilities. As we learned more of the software, we ran into Purchasing issues (deliver to addresses), accting issues, maintenance issues, scheduling issues, etc. Based upon what we “think†we know, we are now going with the multi-plant approach and see if we can streamline the WIP movement issue. If there are some creative juices flowing to address this scenario, I’d be happy hear them and test them before we go live.
A point of frustration I’ve encountered is even though we set up for multi-plant, the resources must have a unique identifier. A common resource of “Saw†must be uniquely identified in the various plants..i.e. A-Saw (Saw in plant A), B-Saw ( Saw in plant B), etc. Apparently, Epicor uses a common table which results in the need for uniquesnes in identifier and I think descriptions.
Greg / Manasa, I’d be more to share thoughts / ideas!
Ron
Ron Brown
Process Manager
Tank Connection
3609 N. 16th St.
Parsons, KS 67357
Office: 620-423-3010 ext. 158
Email: rbrown@...<mailto:rbrown@...>
[cid:tcaffiliates_20081e45b9]<http://www.tankconnection.com>
[cid:linkedin2a45f3] <http://www.linkedin.com/company/tank-connection-affiliate-group> [cid:facebook21c3a5] <http://facebook.com/tankconnection> [cid:twitter7362fa] <http://twitter.com/TankConnection> [cid:youtube563ee1] <http://youtube.com/user/TankConnection>
________________________________
NOTICE: This email and any attachments are considered confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender as soon as possible and delete this email. If you are not the intended addressee, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited by law.
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Manasa Reddy
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 2:23 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Multi-plant vs. Single plant / multi-warehous
Greg,
We feel your pain….we have the exact same issue and we are multi-company / multiplant as well and have received the same answers you have.
It may be the case, that it is base functionality, but that doesn’t mean that Epicor cannot come up with something where resources are actually used in a multitude of ways. We have two paint booths at one plant that the other plants use. I think it is stupid and short sided on Epicor’s part to think companies do NOT utilize their resources in this manner.
Unfortunately I am glad we are not alone out there with this issue. Maybe you and I can get together and figure out a plan of attack to get this to work not just for us but for I am sure, a number of other customers.
Manasa
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com> [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of gclauser@...<mailto:gclauser@...>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 2:17 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Multi-plant vs. Single plant / multi-warehous
I actually have the exact same problem with WIP moving between different plants that are all within 15 mies or so. Management is adamant that we set up Epicor as multi-plant which causes lots of problems when a part needs to be processed in more than one plant.
We are about to put a plating plant into the mix rather than use subcontrated plating. For parts that used to have one MOM with a subcontract plating operation, I now need three different MOMs, Three different part numbers, and two transfer orders to accomplish the same thing. This is all because Epicor will not allow the use of a resource from a different plant. All my complaints over the last 6 months have fallen on deaf ears and the answer I get is "that's how Epicor is supposed to work" or "only me and maybe one other customer has a problem with this so it's nothing that they plan to fix".
I've even asked custom programming to quote on allowing me to somehow use resources from another plant on a MOM but there answer was something like "that's base functionality of Epicor so they cannot understand how they could give me what I want.
One thing we did think about and are going to test somehow is to create resources in plant 'A' that are actually in Plant 'B'. Plant 'B' would then have to log in to Epicor as being in Plant 'A' and report labor against these Plant 'A' OPs with the faux Plant 'B' resource Groups. I actually did this and it kind of works for parts requiring a CMM inspection OP since we only have CMMs currently in one plant.
If I can somehow isolate these costs for accounting maybe by also creating faux departments in Plant 'A' for these faux resources, the task of getting them to the right plant with an accounting transaction of some kind (can you tell I'm not an accountant?) that would be infinetely less trouble that the way it works now. Any ideas here would be greatly appreciated.
Oh, I should also mention that we have the Maintenance module too and this screws that up as well. Our Maintenance Techs can work in all 4 plants but since the Techs themselves are the Maintenance Resources, I have to make them resources in each of the 4 plants which means I cannot really schedule them properly amung other things.
Greg
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
A point of frustration I’ve encountered is even though we set up for multi-plant, the resources must have a unique identifier. A common resource of “Saw†must be uniquely identified in the various plants..i.e. A-Saw (Saw in plant A), B-Saw ( Saw in plant B), etc. Apparently, Epicor uses a common table which results in the need for uniquesnes in identifier and I think descriptions.
Greg / Manasa, I’d be more to share thoughts / ideas!
Ron
Ron Brown
Process Manager
Tank Connection
3609 N. 16th St.
Parsons, KS 67357
Office: 620-423-3010 ext. 158
Email: rbrown@...<mailto:rbrown@...>
[cid:tcaffiliates_20081e45b9]<http://www.tankconnection.com>
[cid:linkedin2a45f3] <http://www.linkedin.com/company/tank-connection-affiliate-group> [cid:facebook21c3a5] <http://facebook.com/tankconnection> [cid:twitter7362fa] <http://twitter.com/TankConnection> [cid:youtube563ee1] <http://youtube.com/user/TankConnection>
________________________________
NOTICE: This email and any attachments are considered confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender as soon as possible and delete this email. If you are not the intended addressee, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited by law.
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Manasa Reddy
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 2:23 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Multi-plant vs. Single plant / multi-warehous
Greg,
We feel your pain….we have the exact same issue and we are multi-company / multiplant as well and have received the same answers you have.
It may be the case, that it is base functionality, but that doesn’t mean that Epicor cannot come up with something where resources are actually used in a multitude of ways. We have two paint booths at one plant that the other plants use. I think it is stupid and short sided on Epicor’s part to think companies do NOT utilize their resources in this manner.
Unfortunately I am glad we are not alone out there with this issue. Maybe you and I can get together and figure out a plan of attack to get this to work not just for us but for I am sure, a number of other customers.
Manasa
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com> [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of gclauser@...<mailto:gclauser@...>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 2:17 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Multi-plant vs. Single plant / multi-warehous
I actually have the exact same problem with WIP moving between different plants that are all within 15 mies or so. Management is adamant that we set up Epicor as multi-plant which causes lots of problems when a part needs to be processed in more than one plant.
We are about to put a plating plant into the mix rather than use subcontrated plating. For parts that used to have one MOM with a subcontract plating operation, I now need three different MOMs, Three different part numbers, and two transfer orders to accomplish the same thing. This is all because Epicor will not allow the use of a resource from a different plant. All my complaints over the last 6 months have fallen on deaf ears and the answer I get is "that's how Epicor is supposed to work" or "only me and maybe one other customer has a problem with this so it's nothing that they plan to fix".
I've even asked custom programming to quote on allowing me to somehow use resources from another plant on a MOM but there answer was something like "that's base functionality of Epicor so they cannot understand how they could give me what I want.
One thing we did think about and are going to test somehow is to create resources in plant 'A' that are actually in Plant 'B'. Plant 'B' would then have to log in to Epicor as being in Plant 'A' and report labor against these Plant 'A' OPs with the faux Plant 'B' resource Groups. I actually did this and it kind of works for parts requiring a CMM inspection OP since we only have CMMs currently in one plant.
If I can somehow isolate these costs for accounting maybe by also creating faux departments in Plant 'A' for these faux resources, the task of getting them to the right plant with an accounting transaction of some kind (can you tell I'm not an accountant?) that would be infinetely less trouble that the way it works now. Any ideas here would be greatly appreciated.
Oh, I should also mention that we have the Maintenance module too and this screws that up as well. Our Maintenance Techs can work in all 4 plants but since the Techs themselves are the Maintenance Resources, I have to make them resources in each of the 4 plants which means I cannot really schedule them properly amung other things.
Greg
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sorry Ron,
I did not realize you had sent the original question out to the group!
Definitely I would love to discuss more, maybe offline. There is just way too much to discuss on an email chain!
Manasa
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Ron Brown
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 3:02 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Multi-plant vs. Single plant / multi-warehous
Now I’m really starting to get a headache………. I think I started the dialogue on this question. We are in the early stages of implementation. We would technically be classified as multi-company / multi-plant / multi-warehouse
that have duplicate resources at four various locations – all within a 40 mile radius. We currently move a considerable amount of WIP between the facilities to take advantage of the duplicate resources as well as take advantage of unique resources … i.e. paint
line. We initially thought about the single plant / multi-warehouse approach in order to use one work order to move the WIP between facilities. As we learned more of the software, we ran into Purchasing issues (deliver to addresses), accting issues, maintenance
issues, scheduling issues, etc. Based upon what we “think†we know, we are now going with the multi-plant approach and see if we can streamline the WIP movement issue. If there are some creative juices flowing to address this scenario, I’d be happy hear them
and test them before we go live.
A point of frustration I’ve encountered is even though we set up for multi-plant, the resources must have a unique identifier. A common resource of “Saw†must be uniquely identified in the various plants..i.e. A-Saw (Saw in plant A), B-Saw ( Saw in plant B),
etc. Apparently, Epicor uses a common table which results in the need for uniquesnes in identifier and I think descriptions.
Greg / Manasa, I’d be more to share thoughts / ideas!
Ron
Ron Brown
Process Manager
Tank Connection
3609 N. 16th St.
Parsons, KS 67357
Office: 620-423-3010 ext. 158
Email:
rbrown@...<mailto:rbrown@...>
[cid:tcaffiliates_20081e45b9]<http://www.tankconnection.com>
[cid:linkedin2a45f3] <http://www.linkedin.com/company/tank-connection-affiliate-group> [cid:facebook21c3a5] <http://facebook.com/tankconnection>
[cid:twitter7362fa] <http://twitter.com/TankConnection> [cid:youtube563ee1] <http://youtube.com/user/TankConnection>
________________________________
NOTICE: This email and any attachments are considered confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender as soon as possible and delete this email. If you are not the intended addressee, any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited by law.
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Manasa Reddy
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 2:23 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Multi-plant vs. Single plant / multi-warehous
Greg,
We feel your pain….we have the exact same issue and we are multi-company / multiplant as well and have received the same answers you have.
It may be the case, that it is base functionality, but that doesn’t mean that Epicor cannot come up with something where resources are actually used in a multitude of ways. We have two paint booths at one plant that the other plants use. I think it is stupid
and short sided on Epicor’s part to think companies do NOT utilize their resources in this manner.
Unfortunately I am glad we are not alone out there with this issue. Maybe you and I can get together and figure out a plan of attack to get this to work not just for us but for I am sure, a number of other customers.
Manasa
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com> [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
gclauser@...<mailto:gclauser@...>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 2:17 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Multi-plant vs. Single plant / multi-warehous
I actually have the exact same problem with WIP moving between different plants that are all within 15 mies or so. Management is adamant that we set up Epicor as multi-plant which causes lots of problems when a part needs to be processed in more than one plant.
We are about to put a plating plant into the mix rather than use subcontrated plating. For parts that used to have one MOM with a subcontract plating operation, I now need three different MOMs, Three different part numbers, and two transfer orders to accomplish
the same thing. This is all because Epicor will not allow the use of a resource from a different plant. All my complaints over the last 6 months have fallen on deaf ears and the answer I get is "that's how Epicor is supposed to work" or "only me and maybe
one other customer has a problem with this so it's nothing that they plan to fix".
I've even asked custom programming to quote on allowing me to somehow use resources from another plant on a MOM but there answer was something like "that's base functionality of Epicor so they cannot understand how they could give me what I want.
One thing we did think about and are going to test somehow is to create resources in plant 'A' that are actually in Plant 'B'. Plant 'B' would then have to log in to Epicor as being in Plant 'A' and report labor against these Plant 'A' OPs with the faux Plant
'B' resource Groups. I actually did this and it kind of works for parts requiring a CMM inspection OP since we only have CMMs currently in one plant.
If I can somehow isolate these costs for accounting maybe by also creating faux departments in Plant 'A' for these faux resources, the task of getting them to the right plant with an accounting transaction of some kind (can you tell I'm not an accountant?)
that would be infinetely less trouble that the way it works now. Any ideas here would be greatly appreciated.
Oh, I should also mention that we have the Maintenance module too and this screws that up as well. Our Maintenance Techs can work in all 4 plants but since the Techs themselves are the Maintenance Resources, I have to make them resources in each of the 4 plants
which means I cannot really schedule them properly amung other things.
Greg
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
We have two plants about 2 minutes apart. We tried for a bit to go multi-plant on those two, but in the end when we switched over to single plant, multiple warehouses, everything got much simpler. Yes, there were issues with "Purchasing issues (deliver to addresses), accting issues, maintenance issues, scheduling issues" when we switched to single plant per city, but those were all relatively easy to overcome (though I admit, all of macro and micro scheduling is done pretty much entirely outside Epicor, and we haven't started using PM module... yet).
The unique resources / warehouse names is actually a blessing in disguise. We established a common prefix for all of our product groups, resources, warehouses, etc.(e.g. everything over here starts with LM- and everything over there starts with LW-), and it becomes pretty easy then to distinguish between the two "plants" that are actually one plant. Sometimes I forget that we do only have one plant for these two facilities. Another point I'd make - a lot of the struggles at go live were overcome by changing our business to operate in a manner that worked better with Epicor. If management pushes back, just re-quote your Epicor consultants: "You don't want to spend upwards of one million dollars just to end up with the exact same system and processes you had before."
Ron,
Yes, setting up Operations, and Resource Groups with plant designators is a must really. We even set up Jobs with a plant prefix. It's hard to get too creative with the OP and Resourc Group IDs since you have limited characters but the descriptions are very important. We call our plants D1, D2, D3, and D4 so a job for plant D3 will have the prefix "D3-". Operation descriptions will be "D3-Injection Molding" and use a resource group with a description of "D3-200T Arburgs". We also use the Machine Number (170) as the Resource ID but the resource description will be "D3-200T Arburg #170". Works really nice. We actually go one further and prefix inspection operations with the prefix "D3Q-" and molding OPs and Jobs with "D3M-", etc. but that might not work for everyone.
Added benefit, we also use the machine number as the Equipment ID in the Maintenance Module and also as the Asset number in the Asset module. Avoids a lot of confusion.
Greg
on the issue with purchasing have you been able to get suggestions per warehouse? we have just went through the same thing and have 2 plants that are about 1 mile apart and went through consulting (1st mistake) they told us with AMM we could get mrp and po suggestions by warehouse but we have not been able to and we have since been told that it only runs on the primary warehouse/bin. or a simple way to figure out what needs to be transfered