My explanation for Norman goes beyond Don's problem.

It has been eons (over 10 years) since we figured this out, so my memory for
all the details is a bit vague. We found that back flushing inventory
component transactions from labor reporting (JIT600) would not work properly
(accurately) unless
(a) bubble numbers were populated
(b) they were correctly populated

There are some glitches in BPCS documentation.
There are some fields that we are told are for optional reference, that are
in fact used by vanilla programs in ways that are not well documented.

We have sub-assemblies where there is work at operation 100 200 250 300 etc.
with the intervening operation #s used for extra description text.
Operation 100 consumes some raw materials. Later operations may or may not
consume additional raw materials, depending on what is being done.

For the material to be consumed at operation 100, the components need to
have 100 in the bubble #. When labor is reported ... we made 1,000 at
operation 100, and scrapped 4, then the components consumed at operation
100, that were needed to go into quantity 1,004 at step 100, do in fact get
consumed when that labor operation 100 is entered.

If there is a component whose bubble number is unpopulated, then it will
only get consumed from inventory when the last and final step of production
is completed. If there is time lag from operation 100 to 950, then there is
time lag on inventory accuracy, which can adversely affect MRP, inventory
needed, inventory shortages, cost of inventory, a whole bunch of areas.

If you kill shop orders when the job is done, instead of going through
proper closing cycle, and you are not using bubble #s correctly, then the
inventory consumption accuracy is never correct.

If you have shop orders that are always completed within a few days of
creation, and properly closed, this should not be a problem for you. We
have shop orders created 6 months ago, not yet completed, for reasons I
don't want to get into here.

Let's suppose the bubble number is for a non-reporting operation step,
either one that is non-existent in routings, or is one used for additional
description. That component will NEVER get consumed by labor, because that
operation can never be reported as made.

This topic may be related to your version of BPCS, and what patches have
been applied. We have modified our BPCS, but not this aspect of it.

Al Mac

-----Original Message-----
From: Norman.Boyd
Aren't the bubble numbers just for reference?
If not, how do they affect the overall posting transaction?


Norman K. Boyd


Check that total requirements correct. (math)
I think there is a bug which can cause a requirement to get doubled up.
(same line twice).
Check bubble #s in BOM (MBM file) are in sync with the reportable
steps where the materials are to be consumed (FRT file).

Al Mac
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger.Henady

Either you have the same item in FMA with 2 sequence numbers or the
allocation is split between two locations.

Roger Henady

"Don Cavaiani"
[BPCS-L] Split FMA record if required


Anyone have an explanation of the situation where the above would occur in
SFC720 (In BPCSCD version)?


Don F. Cavaiani
IT Manager
Amerequip Corp.

"It's amazing what you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the
credit." Harry S. Truman

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2022 by and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.