Hi - My company purchases goods from Contract Manufacturers in other countries. The vendors request Ex Works terms, so we take ownership the second the supply leaves their dock. Travelling from the CMs, across oceans on boats, the supply arrives ~5 weeks later in the warehouse. In other ERP systems I’ve used, there has a been a two step receiving process for this situation, where the first receipt “closes” the PO line so we accept ownership and places the supply in an “in-transit” sub-inventory. Time Phase would show the expected dock date based on a transit parameter. When the supply arrives at the warehouse, a second step of the receipt is done moving it from In-Transit to Main/FG/whatever inventory location. Is this possible in Epicor? Or is there another solution with which I am not familiar? Thank you!!
You could create a warehouse named “In-Transit”, with a single Bin. Make that bin “Non-nettable”. Then make the PO use that as the destination. Then when you are told it has shipped, do a receipt to that warehouse. When it actually arrives, do an Inventory Transfer from the phantom warehouse “In-transit” to the real warehouse.
You could use GL Controls to separate the Inventory accts for the real and phantom warehouses (Accounting might like that!)
With the Bin being Non-nettable:
- Inventory balances stored in non-nettable bins are not included in on-hand quantities, in MRP calculations, are not considered as a source of supply inventory for fulfillment processing in the Fulfillment Workbench, nor as source of supply inventory for the Replenishment Workbench.
Thanks for bringing up this scenario. We have the same issue. We do handle it like Calvin suggests, but still not happy overall. we have the Container/Landed cost feature and would like to use that functionality, but cannot with the Transfer Order setup.
We got the the Transfer Order setup because accounting wanted this material on our books as “owned”.
The container shipment function has the tracking you might want, but it doesn’t show on the GL book as you own it until received.
I just submitted a enhancement request to allow a transfer order to use the container tracking functionality.
Brad
If the phantom warehouse is in the same site as the real warehouse, you can just do a Material move, and don’t need a Transfer Order.
If using a different site was strictly for GL separation, that could be handled with GL controls at the Warehouse level.
We do use a separate site in our case.
Hi Calvin,
First…THANK YOU for replying to my question almost a year ago and I am sorry it has taken me this long to say that. I do appreciate your response and still have some questions.
My main concern is all the issues you bring up about the In-Transit bin being non-nettable. We definitely want MRP to see the supply and also be able to see when it is expected to arrive in the correct warehouse.
I’ll try to give a very specific example to make sure I am explaining the situation correctly:
- We are one business with multiple sites including California and Hong Kong.
- Each site has been set up with multiple warehouses: MAIN, MRB, INSPECTION, etc
We need part 123 in our California Main warehouse and it is supplied by a company in China. Our current process is to create a purchase order from our Hong Kong Main warehouse, receive it, then create a Transfer Order from Hong Kong Main to California Main. This will show the stock on our financial books as soon as it leaves the supplier dock, and it will show the visibility for MRP, time phase, etc.
I’m wondering if we can just create a Purchase Order directly from our California Main warehouse to our HK Supplier and skip the transfer order altogether, while maintaining a couple important things: we must take ownership the second it leaves the supplier dock, and we must be able to see when the supply is expected to arrive so we can schedule sales orders against it. Is this possible to do with normal Epicor functionality?
Again…THANK YOU SO MUCH!
This is an issue with multi-site too. You lose the financial visibility between shipment and receipt. What we did was create a warehouse called “In Transit” or “On the Water” or whatever and immediately received it into that nettable location. In the Reference field, we’d put the due date so you could look at Part Transaction History Tracker (or a dashboard) to get an idea when the parts would arrive. When the parts arrived, they did an Inventory Transfer to the local Warehouse/Bin.
I think the idea behind Transfer Orders, is they are a way to satisfy demand between sites. So buy it to the phantom site, and place a Transfer Order in the site where it is needed (Cali in your case). This creates the demand from in Cali, that is satisfied by a TO Shipment from the Phantom site
I think the flow would be:
-
Part is on an order or job. This creates demand.
-
Place a TO in Cali requesting the part from Phantom site. This satisfies the demand for the order or job. It also creates demand in the Phantom site.
-
Place a PO for the part, with a destination to Phantom site. This can be done in either site.
Up to this point, no GL or Part transactions have occured.
-
When the part leaves the supplier, do a receipt to Phantom site. Now you have PUR-STK GL tran.
The QOH will show as positive. -
Right after the PO receipt in Phantom site, do a Transfer Order Shipment against the TO from step 2. Use info from the suppliers shipment as the details for this TO shipmnet (carrier, shipdate, etc…). This will reduce the QOH back to zero (via a STK-PLT), and move the value to the In-Transit GL account.
-
Do the TO Receipt when it arrives.
If it was for an order, it’ll make a PLT-STK, and increase the QOH, moving the cost from In-Transit to Cali’s Inventory.
If it was for a job, it’ll make a PLT-MTL, moving the cost from In-Transit to Cali’s WIP for that job.
I’m not exactly sure how you would set an expected arrival date. When setting up site to site transfers, you can specify the in-transit time. I think this is used for back calculating when it needs to ship from the source warehouse.
For example if the in-transit time from A to B was 15 days, and the part was needed in site B on 11/30, it would set the ship by on the Transfer Order to 11/15. But if it is actually shipped on 11/10, the system might think its arriving on 11/25.
Thank you for your comments. It does seem to be a tremendous hole in Epicor…if supply is on a boat for 5 weeks, losing financial visibility (and also visibility for MRP) seems utterly ridiculous. I do like the idea of having an In Transit warehouse…I just wish there was an easier way to show when the parts would arrive. But thanks again!
Thanks Calvin - That’s actually exactly how we do it now, and it get’s the job done, but is very cumbersome. You have definitely convinced me that there really is no better way to to do this in Epicor if we want visibility to the inventory, so for that I very much thank you! I’m impressed at the detail of your response and I truly appreciate your time.
Thanks again!
To answer your questions:
Just thinking outside the box … Yo might be able to use the Inspection process as the intermediary state for when it is in transport from the supplier.
- Part requires inspection
- PO placed in Cali site to be received at Cali. Inspection is required.
- When Supplier indicates it has shipped, do the PO receipt in Cali. This should make a PUR-INS.
- When it actually arrives, complete the inspection and the part is now in stock (INS-STK), or WIP (INS-MTL).
That might not be any easier (I’m not really up on the Inspection process and flow).
Maybe someone that does receiving inspection will chime in and either fill in some holes(or squash all together). I don’t know if inspections can be assigned durations or lead times.
Just another thought.
Thanks. I considered that too, but I think we’ll lose visibility on when the supply will arrive/“complete inspection” which will mess up our MRP. Over my 25 years in Planning and Ops, I’ve used a number of different systems, and until Epicor I’ve always seen a two step receiving process for this scenario, first receipt into In-Transit, second receipt from In-Transit into stock, and the Transit lead time would allow visibility as ETA. I’ve been giving my Supply Chain group a hard time telling them that there HAS to be simple solution to do this in Epicor, but I think you’ve confirmed that there is not. I almost feel a little guilty now. Thanks again for your help.
I’ve got another question about MRP suggestions. (Again…I’m not believing my SC)…Shall I ask you or start a new thread?
Start a new thread for the MRP question.
Will do! Thanks!!