Right now there's no overriding reason why they couldn't be merged together, although that would limit our cycle count settings as they're defined partially at the warehouse level.
Beyond that, I'm just trying to make sure there aren't any other factors or issues I'm not thinking of that could affect us down the road.
An example would be if there was ever the potential to separate them physically, that would be one aspect to consider. I just want to make sure I'm aware of any/all implications of merging into one warehouse that has no differentiation of type.
Beyond that though, I'm not sure if there are any other reasons they couldn't be lumped together possibly.
Beyond that, I'm just trying to make sure there aren't any other factors or issues I'm not thinking of that could affect us down the road.
An example would be if there was ever the potential to separate them physically, that would be one aspect to consider. I just want to make sure I'm aware of any/all implications of merging into one warehouse that has no differentiation of type.
Beyond that though, I'm not sure if there are any other reasons they couldn't be lumped together possibly.
--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Serwe <jserwe@...> wrote:
>
> What is the benefit in creating separate warehouses for purchased or
> manufactured parts?
>
> Our Purchased (Raw Material) & Manufactured parts were held in separate
> tables in our legacy system (Microsoft Access) for reporting purposes but
> when we implemented Epicor I didn't see a benefit in keeping them
> separate. If you would be using separate warehouses for reporting purposes
> there are "Part Classes" or "Product Groups" for that in Epicor. Our raw
> material (paper rolls) were just all one bin or warehouse in our legacy
> system but I created separate bins within Epicor. Any bin could in essence
> have anything in it within Epicor but we have 2 different types of storage
> - racking & floor storage that have "columns" or stacks of paper rolls.
>
> When it comes to cycle counts your tags would print in order by bin (Ex:
> 1A, 1B. or A-01-A, A-01-B, A-02-A.) or in order by part. If you have
> separate warehouses set up it would be a separate cycle.
>
> Our physical location identifiers are as simple as you stated for our
> racking (Row (A-Z) - Rack (01-14) - Shelf (A-D)), or for a separate
> building we used Row (AA-JJ) - Rack (01-11) - Shelf (A-D), and our floor
> storage for paper rolls are just 1-8 for different areas and A-O for
> different rows within that area.
>
>
>
> I might be on a different train of thought than you though. If your
> warehouse manager wants to chat strategy some time he can contact me
> direct as well. I am always happy to hear new ideas.
>
>
>
> Josh Serwe
>
> Wisconsin Converting Inc.
>
> Warehouse & Logistics Manager
>
> (920)437-6400 x 330
>
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of b_ordway
> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 12:19 PM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Vantage] Re: Warehouse / Bin Setup Opinion Wanted
>
>
>
>
>
> I've never heard of issues with mixing purchase & manufactured parts.
> What has seemed to matter the most are the primary "points of use" or the
> physical sizes parts.
>
> As for cycle counting I've seen bin numbers that resemble map regions. A1,
> A2... thru Z1, Z2. Then a custom tag report is sorted by region/bin order
> so people can count parts in one pass.
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> "pbparker" <scrumbus@> wrote:
> >
> > We've recently expanded our warehouse and are about to create many bins
> for essentially every row/rack/shelf location. The intention is to
> precisely identify where something is, whereas before, we had one big
> "default" bin. The majority of our warehoused content is divided into two
> warehouses, "Purchased Inventory" and "Manufactured Inventory".
> >
> > Our new warehouse manager has the idea that he wants to in essence,
> co-mingle all inventory so that the warehouse designation doesn't mean
> anything physically - the only identifier to where something is would be
> the bin. His plan is to in essence create bins number 1-100 (simplified
> for this discussion) for both the Purchased and Manufactured warehouses.
> These bin numbers would refer to the same identical location physically,
> so bin 12 would be the same location regardless of whether it's Purchased
> Inventory bin 12 or Manufactured Inventory bin 12. He says this will allow
> him to move items wherever there is available space and not be limited to
> just moving something within the physical boundary of the "warehouse".
> >
> > Has anyone used this type of bin configuration of shared bin locations,
> and have any feedback on positive or negative aspects of this? I see cycle
> counting being a bit more labor intensitve as you'd be moving potentially
> much more based on the part being anywhere in the warehouse. The warehouse
> is currently only around 10,000 sq feet so not huge, but still looking for
> any drawbacks that I'm not seeing in co-mingling.
> >
> > I'll draw up a diagram of what I'm talking about if it's confusing.
> >
> > How co-mingled would look:
> > Manufactured / Purchased Inventory
> > (Bin Numbers shared in each warehouse)
> >
> > 1 5 9
> > 2 6 10
> > 3 7 11
> > 4 8 12
> >
> >
> > How separate would look:
> > Manufactured Purchased
> > (Bin Numbers unique to each warehouse)
> >
> > M1 M5 P1 P5
> > M2 M6 P2 P6
> > M3 M7 P3 P7
> > M4 M8 P4 P8
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>