Re: Incomplete JIT backflushes

[Lisa.Abney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

While I've never worked on that version, my experience with 4.0.5 and JIT
is that when the users claim "it's not working right", we always manage to
trace it back to a data error ... materials that aren't connected to a
routing, an incorrect code on the operation, a bad effective date, etc.
One thing I always have the users research is whether they always have the
same problem with the same production item they're jitting - if so, it just
about has to be a problem with how that bill is set up.  I've never had an
example in JIT where the same item would work one time and not the next - a
random error is always hardest to track!




                    "Bielskus,
                    Mindaugas"             To:     bpcs-l@midrange.com
                    <Mindaugas@onea        cc:
                    c.com>                 Subject:     Incomplete JIT 
backflushes
                    Sent by:
                    bpcs-l-admin@mi
                    drange.com


                    10/03/2001
                    02:44 PM
                    Please respond
                    to bpcs-l






To all,

I have a situation here that occurs sporadically.  Items are submitted to
be
backflushed and only part of the BOM is backflushed.  Most of the time,
there are no problems in backflushing these same items.  The JIT process is
used to do the backflush.  The shop order is created, the time ticket
entered and finally the item submitted for posting.

To try to understand when and why this is happening, I have added a short
program that checks whether for each FMA record there is a VLA record.  The
results are stored in an exception file.

The BPCS version number is 2.7, the operating system 3.2.  The client
modifications to the backflush process that were done pertain to the
assignment of the workstation ID.  In all programs called by the
backflush/posting process, the last part of the WSID is used instead of the
first.  This modification cut-down the frequency of errors.

Some of the users use Client Access. We tried to assign a workstation name,
but that name is disregarded on V3.2 of CA.

Another modification that was done to the entire BPCS system was the Y2K
correction.  That was done probably 3 years ago.  Other than that, the rest
of the code is as SSA delivered it.

I wonder if in subsequent releases of BPCS, there were any fixes to
backflushing.  Any ideas on how to deal with this problem, if not directly,
then indirectly ?

Mindaugas Bielskus
_______________________________________________
This is the SSA's BPCS ERP System (BPCS-L) mailing list
To post a message email: BPCS-L@midrange.com
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/bpcs-l
or email: BPCS-L-request@midrange.com
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/bpcs-l.