infor.com
concierge
infor u
developer portal
Home
Groups
VISUAL - Enterprise Customer Community
Dealing with stock codes - outsource etc
unknown
I have a question about how to handle parts going through our plant. This is the scenario:
- We use an outsource vendor to break weld and form a deck.
- We then receive the part and send it to a paint shop to be painted.
Right now the drawings that we use to control this process are coded with a part code say 0010-1101.
Operations would like to add a suffix to the stock code say 0010-1101-P to allow them to receive a painted part and not request another drawing be created from the design group.
Is there a better way. Operations believes that if they don't do this they will loose visability to the part demand inside MRP.
Find more posts tagged with
VISUAL - Enterprise General Discussions
Comments
unknown
You need to think this through. You can receive a part in, then stock it as another part# like xxxx-xxxx-1 or whatever.
But this begins to create layers in your MRP. Maybe you want layers. But if you have the -P part on the top-level BOM, do you want the extra layer of planned order for the unpainted part? Or will you have the operation for painting as a leg on your top-level BOM, and it would make more sense to just use the unpainted part #?
Will all colors be a -P, or will there be -PB (black), -PW (white), -PR (red), etc? Will you stock the painted parts?
Do you have an overall plan for MRP that would help determine whether the 2-part system will work well for you (exhaustive BOM's vs layers of Engineering Masters;?--classic MRP vs DDMRP?)
Do you have a strategy for optimizing your inventory vs leadtimes, using safety stock, buffers, etc that will help determine whether this tactic will help inventory optimization?
What part demand does Operations think they will lose track of? The unpainted or painted stage?
0712131256598360.doc
unknown
Tom. I finally got back to this after we have kicked this around Operations for the last 6 months. We are no closer to a decision. You comments are valuable and are exposing some fundamental problems in how we look at our ERP. WE don't have the strategies and plan for how we run our MRP and it shows.
Can you give me a suggestion on where to start building this plan. I might need to find a good consultant that could help out with sorting this out.
We are going through growth right now that is making these issues glaringly obvious
unknown
Visual is really good at tracking demand up and down-stream.
I believe you are overthinking it - you get demand for the painted part - the painted part calls for the unpainted part.
Multiple painted parts can all call for the same unpainted part. The drawing, even if it calls for all the possible paint variations has little to do with how Visual operates.
in our shop 142003-73 is painted and calls for 142003 which is a punched and formed pieces, it in turn calls for 142003F which is the punched but not formed part.
unknown
Part of the problem is that I am trying to move to an automated BOM to EM creation tool that uses the CAD data to create the BOM at least a first pass. We also want to make sure that the Drawing BOM matches what we are actually shipping so that it can be properly accounted for. It doesn't seem logical in a CAD package to create another assembly to show the painted version of the part. Even in Visual it seem a bit clunky. Because the paint is an outside service I think it should be tracked with a operations card. Although it brings up the problem of stocking unpainted components.
unknown
QData has a real cool tool for CAD to Visual.
Having said that, I agree CAD drawing should not have the colors on them.
You do use an operation to pay for the outside service of Painting, and if you drop ship from the painter to the client you have no worries.
If you are bringing them back to your plant and need to put them away, you need a new part id.
It only seems clunky. Set up a "sandbox" db and run it several different ways. You will find the easiest way.
CAD to Visual for the unpainted part.
Painted part BOM calls for the unpainted part.
Customer specs in the painted part maintenance file call out for the drawing of the unpainted part. Print Customer specs on all customer related dosuments, not cross ship worries.
unknown
Patric,
This is very relevant to our efforts to improve our operations, using Visual.
1. Did you mean QBuild, not QData? I assume you are talking about QBuild's CADLink. How well does it work for working with BOM's between CAD and Visual?
2. There is an in-house debate regarding part#''s for painted parts. My view is that all parts should be on masters. The way it's been done in the past, no painted parts have part #'s, they have the masters sitting as "inserts" files out on the network, not even in Visual. Do you have problems with setting up part#'s for painted parts? Is it a benefit?
unknown
Just to add another layer of complexity we actually store all our CAD data in a PLM/PDM system. (Teamcenter) from this system we release the product through a PLM workflow.
I think the bottom line is that we control the painting process all in Visual.
unknown
QBuild - correct - brain spasm. Great bunch of guys.
No problem at all setting up part masters/eng masters/BOM's for painted parts. I agree with you, all parts should be properly represented in visual.
Any change you introduce will not satisfy everyone, but find the best methodology, show everyone how it flows through the system, even the accountants, and you will win them over.
unknown
We are running SolidWorks and beginning to roll out EPDM. We are seriously considering QBuild CADLink.
As part of this we are working on a configured top-level part numbering system. Bottom line is to be able to find previous work, FAST, in either EPDM or Visual.
And have all parts in the system, including painted, etc.
I'm convinced the best way to go it to use Visual as designed:
1.you make a DWG/Model:
2. make a new part in Visual. DWG information goes there
3. Make an EM for that part - the dwg info will autofill
4. export Bom from CAD to Visual via CADLink
5. Make WO's and sub-EM's from the master EM
6. ECN: start in CAD/EPDM
7. ECN: export the ECN to Visual using QBuild ECN
8. Visual ECN process will find the links to WO's and sub EM made from the Master ECN.
Does this sound right?
IDF Level 1 Overview Companion Video to XA Roadmap 04232020.mp4
unknown
sounds about right - pilot, pilot, pilot
Quick Links
All Categories
Recent Posts
Activity
Unanswered
Groups
Help
Popular Tags
Infor Lawson Human Resources Group - Discussion
Infor Lawson Technology Group - Discussion
VISUAL - Enterprise General Discussions
Infor Lawson Supply Chain Management - Discussion
Process Automation (IPA) - General Discussions
Pegasus - Partner General Discussions
**General Discussion**
Infor Lawson Supply Chain Group - Discussion
Infor Lawson Financials Group - Discussion
Infor EPM Discussions