Skip to main content

Dear community, 

What is the best way to handle following scenario?

You have a manufacturing part A with components B and C as purchase parts. Part A manufactured from a Shop Order and but it was faulty. Rather than scrapping it, we need to take out Part B out and Remanufacture Part A using that disassembled Part B and issuing Part C again from stock.

I created Manufacturing structure for Part A,

Created a Disassembly Structure for Part A and part B as the produced part

Then Created Remanufacturing Structure for Part A 

However, when I try to set a Direct supply for the Remanufacturing to have a connected disassembly shop order to extract part B, you have to enter Part A and supply type Disassembly in the Remanufacturing Structure/Direct Supply tab but the system does prevents it saying “The direct supply part cannot be the same as the structure header part”.

This works perfectly fine if Part B produced from different disassembly part but it seems functionality does not cover the above scenario.

Is there a different way of doing it?

One option is to use the Manufacturing structure rather than creating a Remanufacturing structure and remanufacturing order but in that case we cannot define direct supply to get part B.

 

 

The idea is that the remanufactured part should be assigned a different part number (typically a prefix) since a remanufactured part would containing used components usually would be sold and valued differently from a manufactured part containing only new components.

You can use the Serial Lifecycle Group to track that say serial number X originally manufactured as Part A-N now has been remanufactured to Part Number A-RM 

Hi Björn, 

Thanks a lot for the explanation, which confirms it is the intended functionality that you must have to use different part number for the remanufactured part. I thought it would be very meaningful if the functionality can be extended to manufacture the same part and use a condition code to segregate the stock produced using used parts. Because for example, a particular Bicycle model should be able to remanufacture using either from used components parts of same model or from compatible parts of different model. What sort of challenges you will see if R&D to extend the functionality to remanufacture the same part because I feel this very common scenario in manufacturing.

 

Best Regards,

Sumedha

The direct, technical reason why we cannot allow the same part number as direct supply is that it would create an infinite loop in MRP. Imagine we have a demand for a remanufactured part A which has itself as a direct supply for disassembly. Then MRP would generate a remanufacturing shop order requisition for part A, which in turn would create a disassembly shop order requisition for part A which in turns creates a demand for part A that MRP creates another remanufacturing shop order requisition for part A and so it continues.

Apart from that, using the same part with different condition codes would not allow the manufactured and remanufactured parts to have different standard costs calculated representing the differences in how they are build. The sales price would also be the same which is often not the case. Also, MRP would not be able to handle demands for the remanufactured part separately from the manufactured part, and it would require the parts to be either lot or serial tracked.

SO there are good reasons why a separate part number for the remanufactured part is a good practice. However, if you still want to use the same part number you can create a stand-alone disassembly shop order, receive the components to stock and then reserve/issue those to the remanufacturing shop order. It is allowed to reuse the same serial number on a remanufacturing shop order which is not allowed on a manufacturing shop order.

Thanks Björn, limitations were well explained. So when we define direct supply, the planning tools take that as normal route of supply. 

Reply


Terms & ConditionsCookie settings