"Request Move" Box - Checked or Unchecked

We have the AMM Module in 10.2 and the default for the request move box is auto checked. When an operator takes their quantity, they are automatically sending a request to the move queue.

We are a fairly small operation and I want the Operators to manually check this box only for certain moves.

I’m told there is no way to change the default for this box to be unchecked.

This is sending my move queue a large amount of “Noise” that I need to make go away.

Does anyone know a way to make the default for this box to be unchecked.


In the Resource Group and Resource Maintenance screens you set those defaults that trickle to MES. So you can set it by Resources.

Also, search this forum for Request Move and you’ll find a couple of posts. One is an example of code for BPM to delete any transaction types that you don’t want*, when they hit the queue. There are some areas of the system that you cannot untick “Request Move”, hence the need for the BPM.

*You can amend the filter to not only look for Transaction Type, but other conditions as well to allow for the instances that you DO want to keep on the queue.

It’s the Auto Move checkbox in that screen. When Auto Move is checked Request Move is not auto checked and visa versa.

In this case there is a large issue with implementing that method (my method… said embarrassingly). The issue in this case is the WIP transactions for AMM rely on these moves. If you don’t Auto Move or Request Move and process the mtl queue item the WIP gets stranded in the system on the operation it’s generated on and you end up with massive amounts of WIP variance. Don’t ask me how I know I don’t want to talk about it grumble

Ah… luckily I think we run out system without being Inventory linked. It does cut down on a lot of ERP team work picking through transactions and wondering what on earth went wrong! :slight_smile:

@jgiese.wci, apologies for being lazy and not finding the post to link to and therefore crediting you directly.

ha ha ha let it lie in this case that method is dangerous so let’s not make the association LOL