Shop Order Maintenance permits you to make BOM and/or routing substitutions.
If disk space permits, you could also consider another environment.
We don't use effectivity dates as designed. Our BOM and Routings are what
the product is right now, latest revision. But BPCS supports multiple
concurrent engineering, in which reports could be run:
Here's costs breakdown using only what's effective relevant to the
engineering as of a particular date. The costs would be latest standard
actual etc. or a copy frozen as of some past date.
Engineering changes for us are fairly rare so we don't duplicate BOM, except
in support of repairs rework. But we have
This Year Costs
Last Year Costs
So reports can be run on inventory, profits, etc. vs. whichever costs.
As new year approaches, we have a Next Year Costs Set work area which gets
populated
1. Clear Next Year then Copy This Year Standard Costs there
2. For raw materials only, replace with Actual Cost, but if zero, leave
3. Human beings key in changes based on expected changes early next year
4. Run queries to identify oops, like different cost raw across facilities
After Physical Inventory completed at year end
1. Clear Last Year, copy This Year There, roll up
2. Clear This year, copy Next Year There, roll up
3. We have Physical Inventory reports showing changes due to the counts, and
due to the costs.
-
Al Mac
-----Original Message-----
From: bpcs-l-bounces+macwheel99=wowway.com@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:bpcs-l-bounces+macwheel99=wowway.com@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
ptrumschlag@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 9:33 AM
To: bpcs-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [BPCS-L] Fwd: KSP Planned Orders for non-blank Material Method
OK. I see now. In the normal use of alternate BOMs in the planned/work
order process (which we don't use), you would only be dealing with one
level in the BOM at a time. It kind of seems like the BOM Maint program
should allow you to specify a Material Method for the components. But, it
does not. System is working as designed.
We are maintaining two sets of "similar" BOMs. This was set up so that we
could have "current" costs and "frozen" costs. The Cost Set definition
allows you to specify a Material Method and Routing Method. We freeze
(sort of) the BOMs, Routings and Costs at the beginning of the year.
Day-to-day changes are made to the current BOMs, Routings and Costs. We
thought this was all working the way we expected. But based on what you
have given me below, it looks like we have some more to check out on the
Costing side.
The option of using the Facility instead of the Method looks interesting.
We'll check this out.
Thanks for the help.
Phil
From: cfgwizard@xxxxxxx
To: ptrumschlag@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 06/19/2010 12:53 PM
Subject: Fwd: [BPCS-L] KSP Planned Orders for non-blank Material
Method
I believe Kevin is correct. That means the results you see in simulation
today are perhaps the same regardless of the BD method. By "duplicating"
the BOM I am assuming there are no changes - they are identical bills, or
at least they were at the time they were copied. Does this mean all
engineering changes are applied to both sets of BOM?
If the BOMs will eventually differ over time, you have just doubled the
BOM maintenance effort. If unique BOM are a necessity, just remember that
you have two shots at the BD method code. 1) the first level planned in
MPS and 2)the first level planned in MRP. A quick glance at your company
info and the efforts in lean and kaizen makes me think it its a relatively
flat bill. That means only those items with a forecast could be MRP code M
and all others would be N.
If unique BOMs are required you may wish to look at a BD facility rather
than method. That would allow additional tweaking to the CIC planning
policy, min bal, time fence, planner and so on. Those may be important
because I assume you would want a zero minimum & lot size, and you would
want to consider forecast only for the MPS items. A facility would also be
a convenient way to disregard any existing inventory.
Regards,
Larry Costain
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Harper <kharper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: BPCS ERP System <bpcs-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Fri, Jun 18, 2010 5:02 pm
Subject: Re: [BPCS-L] KSP Planned Orders for non-blank Material Method
The material method code doesn't work quite the way you're describing. An
alternate material method on a BOM only applies to that single-level bill.
Anything generated below that level defaults back to the blank (default)
method. The method code is not carried down to the lower level
subassemblies.
Do you need to use alternate methods when you're running the Simulation
MPS/MRP? You can run simulation using the default method on the FPOs
without affecting production planned orders.
Kevin Harper
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 2:26 PM, <ptrumschlag@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We have recently set up a new Material Method in the BOM for our
budgeting
process. Basically, the users duplicated all the records in the BOM
file
with new Method Code = BD. We continue to use the "blank" Method Code
records for normal planning and the BD's have not interfered with MPS or
MRP. Running version 4.0.2
For budgeting we use the Simulation menu in BPCS. We load 12 months of
projected sales in KSP as Firm Planned Orders and tag them with Material
Method BD. Then we run the simulation MPS and MRP generations. My
problem is this. Although the KSP records for the FPO's contain the
correct Material Method (BD), none of the lower level Planned Orders
that
are generated have this Material Method, so the system is using the
"blank" Method BOM at lower levels.
Can anyone confirm that this is happening in their system - either
normal
generations (KFP) or Simulation generations (KSP)?
--
This is the BPCS ERP System (BPCS-L) mailing list
To post a message email: BPCS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/bpcs-l
or email: BPCS-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/bpcs-l.
Delivered-To: kharper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
midrange.com
