×
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.
Is it possible that the "usage code" in your bom is not blank? Sounds like it may be trying to process this as a co/by-product. Are there any fingerprints on the FMA that would indicate it was created or maintained by some user after the order was released? Might there be another method code version of the bill that was used for the release?
Regards, Larry Costain
-----Original Message-----
From: Bailey, Dick <Dick.Bailey@xxxxxxxx>
To: BPCS ERP System <bpcs-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Fri, Aug 21, 2009 11:04 am
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 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.
midrange.com
