If you have parts you predominantly buy (set as type P so buyer gets messages) but sometimes make, stash your Fab method for the Part Rev as an alternate so it doesn't screw up your std cost rolls.
You can also get sneaky, ID these parts (ud field in Part table or a special Part Class) so you can find them & poke in use-part-rev equals false prior to rolls (and reset after roll).
Probably several other ways to skin this cat depending on your unique company paradigms and constraints re PART Revs & desired daily behavior versus occaisional competing needs to get clean costs.
Rob
--- Original Message ---
From:effgroups@...
Sent:Fri 5/21/10 12:31 am
To:vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subj:Re: [Vantage] Re: Purchase Part Revisions
For us it was the same.
We use rev for purchased parts but we can't have a method attached to it then the cost rollup works.
Ephraim Feldman
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Gotschall <sgotschall@...>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 03:58:14
To: <vantage@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Purchase Part Revisions
We found the same to be true in version 8. Our consultant told us never to use a rev on a purchase part. It appears to be OK to have a rev on a purchase part as long as you don't assign it a method. We do this so that the rev shows up on the PO.
________________________________
From: Jen Triftshauser <jennifertriftshauser@...>
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, May 18, 2010 7:13:28 PM
Subject: [Vantage] Re: Purchase Part Revisions
Â
Hi!
We are going live June 1 with E9, and we have not setup revisions on purchased parts. The revisions were causing issues for us when we were doing cost rollups on our BOMs. Try removing a revision on a few purchased parts and run MRP. See if you are getting the results you are expecting.
Hope this helps. Good luck!
You can also get sneaky, ID these parts (ud field in Part table or a special Part Class) so you can find them & poke in use-part-rev equals false prior to rolls (and reset after roll).
Probably several other ways to skin this cat depending on your unique company paradigms and constraints re PART Revs & desired daily behavior versus occaisional competing needs to get clean costs.
Rob
--- Original Message ---
From:effgroups@...
Sent:Fri 5/21/10 12:31 am
To:vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subj:Re: [Vantage] Re: Purchase Part Revisions
For us it was the same.
We use rev for purchased parts but we can't have a method attached to it then the cost rollup works.
Ephraim Feldman
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Gotschall <sgotschall@...>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 03:58:14
To: <vantage@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Purchase Part Revisions
We found the same to be true in version 8. Our consultant told us never to use a rev on a purchase part. It appears to be OK to have a rev on a purchase part as long as you don't assign it a method. We do this so that the rev shows up on the PO.
________________________________
From: Jen Triftshauser <jennifertriftshauser@...>
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, May 18, 2010 7:13:28 PM
Subject: [Vantage] Re: Purchase Part Revisions
Â
Hi!
We are going live June 1 with E9, and we have not setup revisions on purchased parts. The revisions were causing issues for us when we were doing cost rollups on our BOMs. Try removing a revision on a few purchased parts and run MRP. See if you are getting the results you are expecting.
Hope this helps. Good luck!
--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Tom" <scott.tom54@...> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> We are just implementing E9 and I am not sure if the revisions are set up correctly for purchased parts.
>
> When I have a manufactured part revision with an effectivity date in the future then MRP is correctly telling me I need that new revision when I look into Job Status Maintenance.
>
> But this does not seem to work with purchased parts. Even with an authorized revision in the future all PO suggestions are using the current date's revision for all future requirements in the New PO Suggestions screen.
>
> Have I made an error somewhere in the setup files or is this just how E9 operates with purchased parts?
>
> Thanks,
> Tom Scott
> Advanced Instruments, Inc
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]