Question

BOM Listing

  • 12 April 2023
  • 2 replies
  • 355 views
E

Currently we are running Kinetic 2022.2.14 and we have noticed that when we run the Standard - SSRS style of the BOM Listing Report (running as indented BOM) it shows un-approved revisions on the component parts. 

When talking to Epicor Support about this we were told:

“By design, when creating the Manufacturing Method, the last created and approved Revision is the one that will be chosen. In case you have created both revisions on the same date, then we will take the first one listed in alphanumeric order. The parent will keep the information from when it was created and won’t update even if the user creates new Revisions for Materials or Subassemblies. This is a design limitation. An alternate way to update the parent BOM to the current child Revisions is to remove the Material and re-add it. This will update the Revision to the latest approved Revision you have available for that material.”

We asked them if they were going to improve this functionality they said:

“There has not been any news about restoring that functionality. However, all of these comments you made could enhance our product. I would recommend you to share them from our Epicor Ideas portal online.”

We are going to create an idea for them online, but; want to let you all know that you could have erroneous revisions on your BOM Listing if you have the same scenario.

I have created a custom version of the report for now that does not list the components revisions.  

Also, my Director of Operations says he has lost functionality drilling down on the Method Tracker to look at the components revision as well.

 

2 replies

mwilson
Userlevel 4

Yes, I’ve noticed that the functionality that once existed in Method Tracker to show now only the PartMtl records but their revisions and their engineering as well, has been removed.  It was my understanding that this was a real-time evaluation of the revisions Epicor expected to use for the material or assembly, rather than a saved revision of the component within the parent part.

If that’s true, I cannot explain Epicor’s statement that old revisions of material items are maintained in a part BOM.

To try to verify or correct my understanding, I went to the Data Dictionary viewer, opened up the field list for PartMtl, right-click, Copy to Excel, and searched the field names for “rev” and only found a revision code for the parent part, not for the material or assembly being specified in the BOM of the parent.

 

Thanks,

…….Monty.

..Monty. Monty Wilson, Vice-President North America, Epicor Users Group
mwilson
Userlevel 4

In the context of the report, Epicor may be saying it won’t show updated material parts (including subassembly) if their approval date is past the approval date of the parent.  That’s the only way I can think of, that they could be judging which rev is appropriate without a specific rev being found in the BOM.  So the workaround of deleting and re-adding the part, would have the effect of bumping the approval date of the parent past that of the child, which would accomplish the apparent “update” of the child part revision within the parent BOM, as shown in the report.

..Monty. Monty Wilson, Vice-President North America, Epicor Users Group

Reply


Terms & Conditions