Below is a image of an assembly from a job that originated from the configurator. Material 140-170 was part of a phantom BOM that had no operations in it. The materials are under operation 10 dropdown but have a related operation of 0. Will this properly backflush those materials? It also appears to come into manually entered jobs correctly so that also doesn’t make sense to me.
The operations of the phantom BOM is the same as ASM 160. I do not want operators to see operations multiple times, so this is why I removed the operation. Would it be better practice to backflush this? Are backflushed operations seen in MES?
Try a reporting that op 10 in your test/pilot environment and see if it works! I am tempted to say that they do sort of “inherit” the related to Op from the parent Phantom BOM item. If they do show under the Op 10, you are likely good, but I would certainly test it to be sure. The icon seems to indicate you’ll be fine as well.
Your screenshot only shows a single operation so you can’t really backflush operations here. I believe that they are “hidden” in the work queue and that if the user tries to clock into them manually they get a pop up message telling them not to do that.
Phantoms are mostly a wrapper for Mtls and Ops, but use Ops with caution if you have multi-site as cross-site ops will cause problems. Phantoms also do not carry a cost like a MoM or BoM will only its children (mtls / ops) do.
Configurator treats Phantoms with operations differently than the typical GetDetails.
When GetDetails are run to create a job where the assembly is linked to a configurator, the phantom’s operations will always be APPENDED.
If this is not the behavior you want, there are a couple of work-arounds.
A. Create phantoms that do not contain operations, and relate those phantoms to the appropriate operation.
B. Create a Configurator Rule that re-writes the Related Operation for the Mtl in question.
Did a bit of R&D, completing jobs through the configurator did not produce the same results as job entry. Job 2912795 (Job Entry) had correct qtys and related op. It also backflushed properly. Job 807647-1-1 (KBMax configured) did not have this and did not backflush.
Why they don’t generate the same is odd. These parts are about 5 levels down in assemblies (the top picture made it look slightly deceiving). The only difference is the very top level (Level 2-5 are the same).
I may dig into looking at the configurator to fixing this as I don’t think backflushing labor is the best option at the moment.
The only way you would get something different is if your configurator rules caused this to occur. Otherwise the phantoms will drop in as they are created.
