× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



We are on 405 CD, which may be too far from your reality to be much help.

We intermittently have similar problems.
Some of our problems we not know what cause them, so we have reports to
identify when we have some garbage, so we can clean it up when we see it.

For example, BOM may call for a particular component.
FMA gets created with multiple copies of that BOM line.

Some problems are caused by not posting transactions in real time.

We have found it uses our clerical staff most efficiently, if most all of
the day's labor transactions are posted in one or two batches for a whole
day.

This means that typically if we complete and ship a product in the same day,
it is shipped to customer, before posting the labor transactions that made
them. Thus, shipments constantly driving end customer items negative, but
next day the inventory is zero again.

Some BPCS programs may have been fixed in later versions.
In earlier versions, some BPCS programs have difficulty managing all the
fields that need to go negative ... allocations for example.

Depending on what was negative when MRP runs, when launching of shop orders
run, the negatives can drive some replenishment programs into calling for
more than needed if there were no negatives there.

-
Al Mac


-----Original Message-----
From: bpcs-l-bounces+macwheel99=wowway.com@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:bpcs-l-bounces+macwheel99=wowway.com@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Bailey, Dick
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 11:04 AM
To: BPCS ERP System
Subject: [BPCS-L] Random erroneous shop order issues


We are on BPCS 8.0

The problem is that we discovered this week that occasionally a shop
order is created with erroneous required quantity values. (Example - our
BOM calls for 1 per of a component but the FMA file calls for -139).

Because the value was negative, the resulting issue was positive.
So, in the example above, the CI was issued for POSITIVE 139. We had
interesting cycle count results which resulted in this being caught.

The basic BOMs are correct; other shop orders for the same
end-product are correct; the base system functions fine.

Have any of you had a similar problem and found a cause?

Dick Bailey
MCFA, Inc


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Replies:

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

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com 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.