Re: MRP Dates Education

[zieske@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

The plan with planning bills and all is very ingenious, however I prefer to keep
things simple if possible.

You definitely need to backdate your new bills and bill changes. That will solve
the majority of your problems. I think the problems with incomplete information
from vendors is much simpler to handle with a dummy component.

If part number CUSTX can not be made because of incomplete information, flag the
part with a dummy component, as an example 'ERROR IN BILL'. Part number 'ERROR
IN BILL' should have a standard lead time for clearing these things up, and all
requirements for 'ERROR IN BILL' should have engineering as the planner.
Engineering should get all planning reports for these bill errors.  This allows
them to directly peg to orders dependent on Engineering activity. They should
maintain close contact with scheduling and keep pushing the due dates of these
orders out until a date that they can reasonably generate a complete bill. When
the bill is complete they can simply remove the 'ERROR IN BILL' item (backdating
the effectivity of course) and everything returns to the normal flow. Meanwhile
if there are any legitimate components for CUSTX they can be planned. HOWEVER,
it is very important that no quesses or probable parts go on to the bill.

Any pick list etc. that accidently gets printed with one of these error parts on
it, will automatically draw attention to the requirement for special handling.

Course just for fun, you could also start collecting some of the costs of this
activity and have it start showing as variances on your shop orders. (Who says
Engineering has to be indirect labor?)



+---
| This is the BPCS Users Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to BPCS-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to BPCS-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to BPCS-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner: dasmussen@aol.com
+---