Here’s some more flaps for ya.
Very interesting thread, I learnt a lot, just need to remember it.
4 Likes
I’m late to the party but,
Create a lot tracked part that is lot costed
This allows you to receive it to stock and then later issue it to a reconfiguration job.
That’s were you can add parts and salvage parts back into inventory
If you only sell this on part it will consume forecasted units
The lot number could be a high level model number
Note
Close the original job to stock to clear out WIP
2 Likes
OK, I really want to love this idea - it solves a few problems and maintains the separate costing so this is cool.
But if all of our trucks are the same part number (or even a select few), how would MRP make different jobs for them?
Well I guess the point here isn’t to make a single unified strategy for all builds, but maybe to do the current process for already-sold trucks and then the lot-track thing for the stock units?
And I should say that explicitly - my mindset 8 years ago (when I was still learning what Epicor even was) was to have the same process for all trucks.
We started with a blend of sales orders and MPS but that was insane trying to unify that into a schedule board of sorts. (Rescheduling - constantly - is really the crazy part.)
And the all-sales-order approach did match what we did pre-ERP - they always mocked up a sale for stock trucks just like sold trucks. So I don’t regret it per se, and the company didn’t need that kind of change back then. But I can definitely see people open to a better way now.
Have you considered having a min on hand for these?
If you put the method of manufacturing on a quote and check the box to pull in the MOM from the quote MRP will work just fine
1 Like
Just because the parent has same PN does not mean all assemblies etc within the Job are the same for each.
We have configured part K25-TAAGC-10 (Lot Costed and serialized units) and is a Configured Single Axle Steel V-Hull Galvanized Trailer where it can have options across several option types: Winch Stand, Tongue, Fenders, etc. This Job would have a parent part number same as any other 58BS 14 800 Single Axle Steel V-Hull but lost costing would be different for any with differing configurations.
1 Like
I can’t rightfully give even a ballpark number, but let’s say our trucks cost $100k-$400k to build. With costs that high, I really doubt that anyone is cool with just letting the system throw out a suggestion to build a truck (and then someone acting on it).
I mean, I’m trying as hard as I can to not reject a recommendation (min OH) just because people would resist it. But I think if I were in the position to decide, I’d never let a computer tell me when to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars without a customer lined up.
My hunch and understanding is that the stock units fill in open slots in the schedule. So in the post-COVID boon, we made zero stock units for quite a while - we had plenty of sales in the backlog. But in normal times, we schedule for a certain production rate and then fill in with stock units if there are gaps. Typically a real order will come in early enough that the stock units just get pushed out (again) further into the future. (If we end up actually making a stock unit, it will get sold. But it’s preferred for everything to have a customer already.)
So all of that is to say, I don’t know how min OH would work there.
1 Like
Sure, agreed. But I think I am still back at the original idea - how would you set demand for the configured part?
OK, I hadn’t thought of that.
So, you’d have to manually manage revision changes on the quotes.
How many levels do I need to define, in order for MRP to make the whole job?
For example, in Engineering Workbench, you only need to define the first level of components of the top-level part. Then if they are pull-as-assembly, MRP will do the rest of the work to expand it out in the same job.
But in a quote MOM, do I need to explode out the whole BOM in all of its subassembly glory?
I assume a person is making the decision to enter the fake SO. Whatever criteria they are using to make that decision could instead be applied to changing the MOH. Unless of course these are more one off decisions and we wouldn’t want to necessarily keep a certain model in stock all the time. I do agree with everyone who is suggesting forecasts/MPS entries, but I think these lend themselves to more manaul, one off decisions and min on hand is more automated/set and forget, of course keeping in mind a process to re-evaluate MOH levels on some kind of schedule is a good idea.
1 Like
I would look into what the two Johns (@kananga & @jkane) suggested. Forecast a base model and then use Planning BOMs to do the options.
2 Likes
I have not looked at the planning BOM feature yet. I’ll have to see that.
Unrelated fun fact - when a thread is this long (100+ replies), Ctrl+F does not find everything if it’s not loaded.
But that is the advantage of the site’s search “in this topic”:
2 Likes
The following links should give you a decent start, or at least let you know if it’s worth investigating any further…
Utilizing ERP Planning BOMs with Epicor IP&O to Predict the Unpredictable
Planning Bom? (this post uses the scenario of building taxis!)
Good luck!
1 Like
We use Forecast tied to a customer for the things we feel like we must have on hand or at least have the material on hand. We put the quantity in with a date far enough out that it doesn’t get released for production but it will drive material demand which has saved our bacon more than once on long lead time items.
I thought about the Planning Bom but I don’t know enough about it at this point… that’s a rabbit hole for a different day…
1 Like
Have you thought of Forecasting? We do that for every finished good we make. It would generate an unfirm job (make to stock) and drive demand for all the components needed. If you get a SO after the build has started (but not received to stock yet) you can always add the demand link to that job to make it direct to the SO. Sort of like having your cake and eating it too.
This is a fun thread. We are in a similar situation with complex engineered to order equipment. We handle it thusly:
We set up a part with a hypothetical complete BOM based on what sales tells us the popular features are at our regular S&OP meetings. Then a dozen to two dozen hypothetical BOM parts numbers get dumped into the forecast module. Since we see some seasonality there is more forecast loaded for some months than others. As these forecast BOMs never go on a sales order we let them roll off monthly or inactivate them manually when a similar configuration is sold in a particular month.
Also, we have part numbers set up for a build that is 60% complete. I load them into the MPS counterpoint to the forecast, so MRP drives a steady flow of jobs in our slower season, in preparation for the busier season. Basically, MPS is what we are making, regardless of the seasonality of sales. This 60% complete part number does get produced and put into inventory. When there is a sale order entered, I generate a make direct job. The base model is issued to the job as a material, along with whatever additional materials or subassemblies are needed to complete it. We try to keep the base model generic enough that we only add to it, not remove from it. As we are an engineer to order manufacturer is does happen occasionally that we take things off, in which case I utilize 'Job Receipt to Salvage".
I do review the forecast and MPS we have loaded regularly, but once they’re set up it’s pretty quick to verify things are running as expected and adjust as needed.
5 Likes
i have worked with a few vehicle manufacturers, and they do similar, they have a part which is basically an embryo which is the lowest common denominator, usually two, one for LHD and one for RHD. demand for these is normally done via min in hand or forecast, and then sales orders consume them and jobs take them to the finished part.
swapping demand between stock and orders can be achieved with a decent dashboard, leave the jobs unform for as long as possible.
Issues can arise from scheduling sub assembly’s such as painted doors to arrive lineside for the correct colour/spec vehicle, but this is easily remedied.
I think you may have to do some automation and configuration, but this kind of business is right in the sweet spot for Epicor.
I assumed I had explained this as I would not necessarily set demand for the TOP level PARENT.
I would work out the children assemblies and/or their successor substitute (changed items). This demand could be either Job of these children or Forecasts of the appropriate children.
Look at it this way the TOTAL TRUCK (SAME PN with different component items same scenario as our base trailers the MoM structure is 999-BOOMS, 999-BRAKES, 999-BRAKE-LINE, etc.), all of these devolve from phantoms to the appropriate 400-#ASM# containing the appropriate Parts to fit these for a given model. These children are really the items needing forecast or if you have a crystal ball go for it and put it together in a full MoM for the entire truck, but the way I see what you are asking for is a forecast on the CHILDREN (Asm) not the end result TRUCK (PN).
1 Like
Ditto on the forecasting of a child/sub-assembly truck. I’ve worked at places that OEM trucks and that is how we handled generating demand for the most common raw materials. One thing to remember: if you have a complicated nested BOM you many have to strip out the raw materials from the lower levels and put them in the top level of your forecast truck BOM to generate the proper PO suggestions.
First…
We created a part number like “TRUCK FORECAST” and in the BOM included all the most commonly used parts from our truck BOMs, as well as any super long lead time parts that might take 6 months to ship from overseas.
Then…
We created a forecast for “TRUCK FORECAST” and the qty we usually build each month.
Last…
The last step was to automate some forecast consumption. When a sales order was placed for a real truck, a BPM would remove the corresponding qty from the forecast truck for that same need by date, ensuring we wouldn’t see over-estimates for PO suggestions.
1 Like
Welcome @ajensen !!
Nice response and process.
2 Likes