Skip to main content
Solved

Eng Part Direct transfer for multiple position

  • February 4, 2026
  • 2 replies
  • 23 views
F
Sidekick (Partner)
Forum|alt.badge.img+3

Hi together,

I got a question.
Is there a specific reason why a direct transfer of eng parts is not allowed in standard for multiple positions?
(mask: Engineering Revision Transfer Status)

all positions are in status assigned and single position direct transfer is possible all for positions


Kinds regards
 

Best answer by SNIRLK

Hi ​@FleVidurK,

Yes, this is by design in standard IFS Engineering Revision Transfer, and there is a specific technical and data‑integrity reason why Direct Transfer is restricted when multiple positions are involved, even though:

✅ All positions are in status Assigned

✅ Direct Transfer works for a single position

 

Direct Transfer is intentionally limited to single-position context because multiple positions can introduce revision and phase‑date conflicts in manufacturing, which IFS prevents at transfer time to protect production integrity.

For multiple positions, IFS requires Detailed Transfer so the system (and the user) can explicitly validate revision handling, dates, and structural consistency.

 

Revision handling is based on part, not position

IFS revision logic is driven by:

  • Engineering Revision
  • Phase‑In / Phase‑Out dates
  • Inventory revision uniqueness

When the same engineering part appears in multiple drawing positions, transferring them in one direct action can unintentionally:

  • Create multiple inventory revisions with the same phase‑in date
  • Overwrite revision history
  • Cause conflicts in production planning

 

Hope this will clear out your doubt. Let me know your feedback.

Thanks & Regards,

SN

    2 replies

    F
    Sidekick (Partner)
    Forum|alt.badge.img+3
    • FleVidurK
    • Author
    • Sidekick (Partner)
    • February 9, 2026

    Any ideas about this one?

    Kind regards
     

    SNIRLK
    Hero (Employee)
    Forum|alt.badge.img+9
    • SNIRLK
    • Hero (Employee)
    • Answer
    • February 9, 2026

    Hi ​@FleVidurK,

    Yes, this is by design in standard IFS Engineering Revision Transfer, and there is a specific technical and data‑integrity reason why Direct Transfer is restricted when multiple positions are involved, even though:

    ✅ All positions are in status Assigned

    ✅ Direct Transfer works for a single position

     

    Direct Transfer is intentionally limited to single-position context because multiple positions can introduce revision and phase‑date conflicts in manufacturing, which IFS prevents at transfer time to protect production integrity.

    For multiple positions, IFS requires Detailed Transfer so the system (and the user) can explicitly validate revision handling, dates, and structural consistency.

     

    Revision handling is based on part, not position

    IFS revision logic is driven by:

    • Engineering Revision
    • Phase‑In / Phase‑Out dates
    • Inventory revision uniqueness

    When the same engineering part appears in multiple drawing positions, transferring them in one direct action can unintentionally:

    • Create multiple inventory revisions with the same phase‑in date
    • Overwrite revision history
    • Cause conflicts in production planning

     

    Hope this will clear out your doubt. Let me know your feedback.

    Thanks & Regards,

    SN

    Terms & ConditionsCookie settingsAccessibility statement