Thanks Dave for suggestion. As a matter of fact that is one of the
possibilities under considerations. This way we keep the structure
and add minimal extra work.
Hoping to hear from anyone else with a different proven approach
before making a final decision. It would be much more difficult to
change after going live.
Bahram
possibilities under considerations. This way we keep the structure
and add minimal extra work.
Hoping to hear from anyone else with a different proven approach
before making a final decision. It would be much more difficult to
change after going live.
Bahram
--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Thomas" <dthomas@...> wrote:
>
> Another option would be to create a new "Manufactured" part number
> for the phantom item when it is manufactured/sold on its own. The
> BOM for the new part will consist only of the phantom. This will
> allow you to continue using the phantoms as you are now, and also
> make and sell them when needed.
>
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Charlie Smith" <CSmith@> wrote:
> >
> > Manufacture the subcomponents and run them through inventory.
Now
> you
> > can run minimums and safety's on the sub components. You can
then
> sell
> > the subcomponents from inventory or issue them to the upper level
> > assembly. This will also help when the subcomponents are used in
> more
> > than one final assembly. In the upper level assembly you can
> decide in
> > the MOM whether you want to pull them as an assembly or not. You
> can
> > view then either way as well.
> >
> >
> >
> > At the job level, if you want to make them within the job, build
> them as
> > a subassembly. If you want to pull them from inventory, make
them a
> > material item.
> >
> >
> >
> > Charlie Smith
> >
> > Smith Business Services / 2W Technologies
> >
> > http://www.VistaConsultant.com
<http://www.vistaconsultant.com/> /
> > www.2WTech.com
> >
> >
> >
> > CT: (860) 620-9553
> >
> > PA: (814) 333-3117
> >
> > IL: (312) 583-9985
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com]
On
> Behalf
> > Of bnazmi38
> > Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 10:20 AM
> > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Vantage] Re: Structuring Engineering MOMs
> >
> >
> >
> > There is a possibility that we would also sell the Phantom
items.
> > In other words, imagine product XYZ is consisted of sub-
> > assemblies/phantom XYZ-1, XYZ-2 and XYZ-3
> >
> > Our customers may want to buy either one of these items:
> > XYZ, XYZ-1, XYZ-2 and XYZ-3
> >
> > Bahram
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%
40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > "Dave Thomas" <dthomas@> wrote:
> > >
> > > A phantom, by definition, is never manufactured. It's
components
> > > become part of it's parent's Job BOM. Why do you need
operations
> > on
> > > phantoms?
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%
> 40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > "bnazmi38" <bahramn@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This question is directed to users with hands on experience
> with
> > > > structuring and maintaining MOMs.
> > > > We are in preparation mode before launching Vantage software
> for
> > > the
> > > > first time. Our dilemma is as how to structure MOMs to
address
> > the
> > > > issue with labor reporting. Apparently having Phantoms with
> > > operations
> > > > assigned to them can result in false labor reporting at top
> > level,
> > > > when rolled up.
> > > >
> > > > Does anyone have a method of successfully addressing this.
The
> > > obvious
> > > > solution is to not to use phantoms and just have a flat BOM,
> > i.e.
> > > no
> > > > structure. This option would not be a practical one for us
> > > considering
> > > > the number of BOMs that we have now and is growing every
day.
> > Not
> > > > alone to mention maintaining them.
> > > >
> > > > Desperately seeking feedback.
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Bahram
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>