In our case we are doing revisions for bugfixes, code changes, etc on
the configured part number. We tried it without doing revisions, and
the system would stop generating unfirm jobs because the configurator
had substantially changed, so we went to revisions for changes to the
configured part, and that started causing problems. Kind of a damned if
you do and damned if you don't scenario.
If it were just part changes, yes, I would agree with you, but in our
case it is configurator changes that are driving the scenario, and if we
switch to the new revision basically we have to go re-configure all of
the old orders done under the old revision, which is not really an
option. If the system would respect the flag, then it would work.
Basically I would like the system to do what the help file says it
already does, but that is asking a bit much apparently.
Paul Millsaps
Time Manufacturing
254.399.2170
paulm@... <mailto:paulm@...>
This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain
confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No
confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission.
If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and
all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and
notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose,
distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the
intended recipient.
________________________________
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Brian W, Spolarich
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 9:01 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Use Part Rev
I would argue that two parts that are functionally different are not the
same part. Revisions should be substitutable for one another (form, fit,
function).
Sounds like you want to add a part number suffix that identifies the
part
family for related but non-substitutable parts?
On 11/5/08 2:28 PM, "nmtaylor1969" <n.taylor@...
<mailto:n.taylor%40kingfield-electronics.co.uk> >
wrote:
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
the configured part number. We tried it without doing revisions, and
the system would stop generating unfirm jobs because the configurator
had substantially changed, so we went to revisions for changes to the
configured part, and that started causing problems. Kind of a damned if
you do and damned if you don't scenario.
If it were just part changes, yes, I would agree with you, but in our
case it is configurator changes that are driving the scenario, and if we
switch to the new revision basically we have to go re-configure all of
the old orders done under the old revision, which is not really an
option. If the system would respect the flag, then it would work.
Basically I would like the system to do what the help file says it
already does, but that is asking a bit much apparently.
Paul Millsaps
Time Manufacturing
254.399.2170
paulm@... <mailto:paulm@...>
This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain
confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No
confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission.
If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and
all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and
notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose,
distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the
intended recipient.
________________________________
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Brian W, Spolarich
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 9:01 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Use Part Rev
I would argue that two parts that are functionally different are not the
same part. Revisions should be substitutable for one another (form, fit,
function).
Sounds like you want to add a part number suffix that identifies the
part
family for related but non-substitutable parts?
On 11/5/08 2:28 PM, "nmtaylor1969" <n.taylor@...
<mailto:n.taylor%40kingfield-electronics.co.uk> >
wrote:
><mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , "Paul E.
>
>
> No Paul it doesn't as far as my experiences indicate... :o(
>
> In fact we have given up trying to get MRP to respect revisions (
> something which is crucially important to us ). We now differentiate
> between revisions by using different part numbers within the MPF. We
> actually use the part revision for non functional changes, i.e. those
> which need to be recorded but are not functially different. Typically
> this might be a process change...
>
> I am afriad this all puts pressure on your revision control and
> implementation process outside of Vantage...!
>
> Regards,
>
> Nick
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> Millsaps" <paulm@...> wrote:automatically
>> >
>> > Does anyone know for sure if the MRP respects the 'Use Part Rev'
> flag on
>> > the Part Masterfile? From my tests, it does not work correctly,
> but I
>> > wanted to see if anyone else had experience with using Configured
> items
>> > this way? The help file says it does this:
>> > Use Part Rev
>> > Indicates whether Material Requirements Planning (MRP)
>> > <../MRP/MRPOvrvw.htm> should consider the highest (most current)
>> > revision available of the part.
>> > If you clear this check box, in MRP you can create demand for
> different
>> > revisions of the same part, and the different revisions are
> honored. If
>> > the check box is selected, an entry of the part number
>> > specifies the most current revision.MRP
>> > This option does not apply to requirements for stock. Also, this
> check
>> > box has no effect if you do not use MRP.
>> >
>> > The situation I have is configured units, which are ordered 4-6
> months
>> > out, we stop at the Sales Order when creating the units, and let
>> > generate unfirm jobs until 6 weeks out from the due date, then weand
> firm
>> > them up. This allows us to process any change orders, etc without
>> > having to modify the job also. This works well, unless we create a
> new
>> > revision of the part. Once we have a new revision of the part,
> where
>> > the due date of the order or job is AFTER the revision effective
> date,
>> > it stops creating jobs manually, and also not creating them when
> the MRP
>> > runs a full or partial regen. This pretty much screws up the system
>> > Epicor kept wanting us to go towards, to let MRP handle most of the
>> > heavy lifting. Has anyone else experienced or seen this type of
>> > behavior?
>> >
>> > Paul Millsaps
>> > Time Manufacturing
>> > 254.399.2170
>> > paulm@...
>> >
>> > This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain
>> > confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No
>> > confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any
> mistransmission.
>> > If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it
> and
>> > all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it
>> > notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use,[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> disclose,
>> > distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not
> the
>> > intended recipient.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> >
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]