Multi-Site BOMs

I now know that revisions on parts are site-specific. Yay.

I get it. Operations (and resource groups) are site-specific, therefore revisions as well.

But honestly, it’s only the BOM (the parts) that I need to be universal to all sites. The other site just needs the parts listing of a sales kit. They don’t care about operations. I wish there was a way to make a BOM (only) shared across sites.

I don’t know how that would work; I’m thinking you’d have to separate the BOM and the BOO (and they are separate already) in the way that HTML and CSS are separate. You can apply different style sheets (CSS) to the same HTML page if you want to redo the colors or whatever.

Just throwing it out there.

Meant to cross-reference this post by @Nancy_Hoyt. I’m new to multi-site, but I thought she summed up the heartache well.

Hi Jason,

Your post worries me a bit. Post E9-E10 upgrade, after 9 months of carrying on with Epicor support that they changed a functionality that we HEAVILY relied upon, notably, full BOM listing regardless of part revision plant, they fixed it and told us to go to 10.1.600.20 to receive the benefit of the fix. We did and have been happy as clams (like the little clams we were in E9 with it!) with the fix.

Don’t tell me they broke it again?!?! in 10.2.

Are you saying that when you do a BOM listing or method tracker for a parent part that has children that are manufactured in different plants (i.e., different part rev plant between parent and child(ren)) that you do NOT see all lower level parts that go into the final top parent part?

We have controlled govt orders and showing every part that goes into every part is a very big deal to us…


@Nancy_Hoyt No, I have not looked into it that far. If that has been improved, that’s good. I just saw your post, when I was looking to see what others might have said about this, and I thought I’d reference it.


Looks like you are right, you can see all lower levels when viewing the parent revision in its site.

To get suggestions for the components, I’m guessing they must be stocked in both sites and transferred as needed. There is no “make direct” from another site, I guess. Nor is there a “transfer direct” option.

I want to clarify what you see and share what I’m seeing. Rather than “part A” and “site B,” I’ll give you some real numbers.

  • Small parts are manufactured in the MFG site
  • Those parts are sold from the PDC site
  • But for testing, let’s set
    • Part 10918 (rev E) to be made in MFG, yet
    • Component 10918-1 rev C made in PDC (in MFG, type is Transfer from PDC)
    • Component 10918-2 rev C made in PDC but not assigned to site PDC
    • Component 10918-3 (rev A) made in PDC but not assigned to site MFG
    • All parts are qty-bearing and not non-stock
    • MOM for first two components use MFG ops yet revision is assigned to PDC
    • MOM for first last component uses PDC op with a PDC revision

What I see:

  1. If I’m logged into MFG, I can see the full MOM in method tracker (all detail at all levels)
  2. If I’m logged into PDC, I cannot load the MOM of 10918 at all in method tracker
    a. EDIT: Now I can see any MOM in any site. No idea what happened before, except that I closed and reopened Epicor. The rest is still true.
  3. If I’m logged into PDC, I cannot “get details” for 10918. No revisions appear.
  4. In MFG, I can “get details” for 10918. Sort of.
    a. If 10918-3 is marked as pull-as-assembly, Get Details will show rev E, but I can’t click OK—it’s grayed out.
    b. If 10918-3 is not pull-as-assembly but the other two components are pull-as-asm, I can get details (I can click OK)
    c. When I experimented with making the components non-stock, it just tries to purchase them direct (whether the part in manufactured or transfer or even non-existent in MFG).
  5. Assuming I create a job where the components are not pull-as-assembly and not non-stock:
    a. 10918-1 goes negative in MFG; suggests a transfer from PDC, but can’t make a job for PDC
    b. 10918-2 goes negative in MFG; suggests to make it in MFG but can’t find a revision, so no jobs are created
    c. 10918-3 stagnates at zero OH in MFG; job shows it as purchase-direct, but there’s no supplier assigned to a part that’s not even in the site (duh), so it goes nowhere.

Hi Jason,

I am pleased to read that the functionality providing cross plant boms looks to be working still in 10.2.xx! I hope the bom listing report works also. Reading over your summary, I think we generally have the same going on.
One thing however, 5.a. states you get a transfer suggestion but “can’t make a job for PDC”. I would expect an unfirm make to stock job for this 10918-1 rev C mfrd in PDC and setup as transfer part on MFG. Do you?


Right, I probably would get a suggestion if I was playing by the rules.

What I did was just take normal old revision C (created in MFG with MFG ops) and simply change its site in Part Entry. Well it sure lets you do that, but MRP can’t process a PDC revision with MFG ops in it.

I outsmarted the system! But no.