To be clear, we do not MAKE lot-tracked parts, but we do buy them and issue them.
I attached a PDF (of a PPT) of the general idea.
But in summary:
This example uses a single part (123449) and a single JobMtl row
On hand we have 5 EA of lot A0001 and 5 EA of lot B0002 (both for part 123449)
Issue 6 (yes 6) of A0001 to Job 9493, Asm 31, Mtl 10
In Part Tracker for 123449, lot A0001 is at -1 EA (negative 1)
Issue 3 of a different lot (B0002) to the same Job/Asm/Mtl
Thant makes 9 total to that Job/Asm/Mtl but in 2 lot numbers
Return 8 of lot B0002 from the job
Now B0002 is negative on the job
If you try any of this at zero OH, you are blocked by an error (that’s good). But if you have some on hand or some issued already and then overshoot that number with an issue or return, it won’t stop you.
Please let me know if you are able to replicate this, if you have a chance.
In my view, we have always had some problems with how we validate quantities of lot controlled items. Back in the olden days, we had the same problem with Serialized items and we allowed you to issue or ship the same serial number to multiple places. We fixed this, but we need to do the same with Lot control It should stop you (or at least warn you) that you do not have that many of a lot. It should also prohibit over-returning the lot.
All that said, this is “how it has worked” for a very long time. To get this changed, it will take an enhancement to the software.
The best tactic for getting this done is with Epicor Ideas.
BY THE WAY… the Ideas Portal is getting new emphasis here at Epicor, and you will see announcements very soon about how we are updating the status codes to make them more meaningful. We have a renewed interest in resolving ideas that have high vote counts. This has been a daily discussion in Product Management, Development, and Marketing.
SO… submit a good case in the Epicor Ideas portal, and vote.
@JasonMcD We found this type behavior in 9 if you did fifo costing and lot tracking the fifo layers were good, but the lot could get crossed up. It was correct if we used LotFIFO costing which added the lot to the fifo layer and have been good for 11 years.
I could not tell the costing method from your file, so you may have something else.
Thanks to both of you. I’ve got a ticket open for this, but clearly it is not just me.
What I thought was surprising was that no one has ever reported this here as far as I could find, and there seem to be no KBs in EpicCare either. I’ve known this for years, too, but my users are getting more and more upset by this, so I finally got around to writing it up.
I’ll want the ticket to play out as to whether it’s intended or not, but it looks like @timshuwy knows where it is headed. After that I’ll submit the “idea.”
I ran into this at the last company I worked. I’ve had to “straighten out” many lot tracked entries over the years. I agree that it shouldn’t allow you to do this, nor should it allow you to issue/return more material than you have whether lot tracked or not. Just my two cents…
I’m excited to hear this BUT with a limit of only 50 lifetime votes per person, the vote counts on a particular issue are meaningless. I ran out of votes a long time ago and shuffling them from one issue to another feels meaningless.
You should get to vote for any idea one time, no limit. I don’t mind having a limit for “Extra” votes, so if you want to put 2 or 3 votes for an issue that uses up your votes. But not to vote once. That would make the vote counts more meaningful imo.
They should also tag PRB/ERPS numbers on ideas so you can actually figure out when it is released.
Re your 50 votes… it is not 50 lifetime votes. once the item goes to SHIPPED status (what we currently call it) your votes get automatically released.
I have been arguing that possibly they get released when the idea is “complete” (ie… we have done the work, but it will not be available till next release). but I lost that argument. Once we adjust the status codes, you will be able to see which ideas have been completed and any comments we post about it. You can then take away the votes since at this point, the programming is already complete.
I like this voting idea, BUT we dont get much choice about this. We are using a platform https://www.aha.io which is a very nice platform for product management and idea processing. We are expanding our use and better defining it, BUT we still have to follow the constraints of that platform. Maybe I should submit this as an Idea for their platform (ha… I wonder if they use Aha for their ideas. I will check).
Then just allow people more votes!! 50 is a miniscule number in the context of everything that should be fixed in epicor, let alone the great ideas people have for improvement. I think it would be different if support were willing to accept design problems through support channels but they aren’t. Many of the ideas I have (and vote for) I would consider bugs. Maybe they are working as designed but the design is the problem. And support redirects those to the ideas platform. To limit this to only 50 lifetime votes doesn’t make any sense if the goal is to actually hear the voice of the customer.
And yes, Aha does use their own platform for ideas
Also, ideas go to shipped status so rarely that is a meaningless distinction.
I could quote the whole post as I agree with every word, but this is what gets me most irate about the “ideas.”
We find a problem
We spend hours determining root cause
We detail steps to replicate
We explain it to support who almost never understands the first time if at all, despite an illustrated guide (see first post in this discussion)
Then support reports it to development, who you can only hope will also take the time to understand the issue
And then as @aosemwengie1 said, they turn around and say it’s designed this way (See: negative lots) and we have to write it up again for the portal
Some of us put a lot of effort into all of this to make the software not be so infuriating to work with – which would help Epicor sell more software, I’d think – and we are told, “hopefully your friends will like your cute idea.”