Thanks again Rob. I will do some experimentation and see how I get
on...
We are on 8.03.305K, and have NO plans to upgrade to 8.03.4xx any
time soon. We are upgrading from a home grown system ( which I
developed over 15-years ), and the biggest challenge for us is moving
from a non-MRP, batch build system to an MRP based one. If we had a
system that was unstable we wouldn't know if any strange results were
down to us or down to the system itself. That would be dreadful!
Thanks again for your input...
Nick
--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, Robert Brown <robertb_versa@...>
wrote:
to open up more of these read only or totally hidden details to
editing if you wish.)
behavior you desire after each experimental change to the MoM
structures.
are assured 405 is safe to install and you have done so.
result of bugs or is actual behavior you can rely upon.
on...
We are on 8.03.305K, and have NO plans to upgrade to 8.03.4xx any
time soon. We are upgrading from a home grown system ( which I
developed over 15-years ), and the biggest challenge for us is moving
from a non-MRP, batch build system to an MRP based one. If we had a
system that was unstable we wouldn't know if any strange results were
down to us or down to the system itself. That would be dreadful!
Thanks again for your input...
Nick
--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, Robert Brown <robertb_versa@...>
wrote:
>allow you to edit ALL job detail data. (You can customize job entry
> Vantage is a little quirky in that (base app) Job Entry doesn't
to open up more of these read only or totally hidden details to
editing if you wish.)
>then pull those details into Jobs to see if you are getting the
> I recommend focusing on experimentation with MoM detail set up &
behavior you desire after each experimental change to the MoM
structures.
>404B, you might want to consider delay your experimentation until you
> Also, if you happen to be on the disastrous (bug laden) release
are assured 405 is safe to install and you have done so.
>difficulty determining if the behavior you are experiencing is a
> 404B is such an irresponsible mess of a release, you will have
result of bugs or is actual behavior you can rely upon.
>with Vantage
> Rob Brown
>
> --- On Sat, 6/28/08, nmtaylor1969 <n.taylor@...> wrote:
> From: nmtaylor1969 <n.taylor@...>
> Subject: [Vantage] Re: Pull-As-Assembly / Logic / Best Practice
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, June 28, 2008, 2:46 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks Rob, I guess I just need to keep playing around
>BOM
> in our test environment so as to fully understand the logic. We
>
> encountered a problem yesterday where Vantage didn't seem to like a
>
> non-pulled child assembly being part of a pulled parent. The job
>as
> only appeared correct when the parent and the child where all set
>un-
> pulled. To make matters worse we were re-engineering an existing (
>are
> released ) job bom, so perhaps the problem was associated with this
>
> process. Thanks for your input.
>
>
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups .com, Robert Brown <robertb_versa@ ...>
>
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Pull & View as assembly is not an all (in the multi-level BOM
>
> structure) or nothing decision. You can choose to set only certain
>
> BOM levels to be pull and or view as assembly.
>
> >
>
> > We set our Make Direct (non-stock/phantom) Part BOM structures as
>
> both Pull & view as assembly (only through the phantom levels) so
>
> that make to order assembly jobs (the bulk of our business)
>
> generate 'flattened out details.
>
> >
>
> > As we migrate to lean and kan-ban, our plan is to convert the
>
> highly repetitive, preproduced to informal kan-ban subassemblies to
>
> stocked/non- phantom and adjust the MoMs they are used in so they
>this
> not pull & view as assembly.
>
> >
>
> > I believe Engineer to order companies might use a variation of
>in
> if they desire one big 'project' job with multiple processing legs
>phantoms) .
> the massive job. In this scenario, I believe they would set up the
>
> subassemblies as View as assembly (and they would be non-
>as-
> >
>
> > Perhaps someone who does business in an ETO type of environment
>
> could expound on that as I'm going from memory.
>
> >
>
> > Rob Brown.
>
> >
>
> > --- On Fri, 6/27/08, nmtaylor1969 <n.taylor@ .> wrote:
>
> > From: nmtaylor1969 <n.taylor@ .>
>
> > Subject: [Vantage] Pull-As-Assembly / Logic / Best Practice
>
> > To: vantage@yahoogroups .com
>
> > Date: Friday, June 27, 2008, 10:09 AM
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Can anyone tell me if you are making use of the pull-
>and
> assembly
>
> >
>
> > option within the BOM detail...?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > We are going through the latter stages of 8.03 implementation,
>desire
> >
>
> > have entered a few jobs with pull-as-assembly sub-assemblies.
>
> >
>
> > Initially I thought this was a good idea, however as our Vantage
>
> >
>
> > understanding grows, we are finding it restrictive to have sub-
>
> >
>
> > assemblies set this way. It seems to restrict flexibility.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Even where jobs are for batch built product we still have a
>in
> to
>
> >
>
> > manage sub-assemblies differently to the parent ( i.e. different
>
> MRP
>
> >
>
> > rules etc. ) and the pull-as-assembly feature seems to make life
>
> more
>
> >
>
> > difficult.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I wondered if people are configuring BOMS using this option, and
>pull-
> >
>
> > what circumstances you make use of it ?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Also, can I ask: If a parent assembly is defined as pull-as-
>
> assembly,
>
> >
>
> > then all child assemblies must follow suit and also be set to
>
> as-
>
> >
>
> > assembly ?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Thanks,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Nick Taylor
>
> >
>