Hi Carole,

Yes, this behavior is possible, You can create one Engineering Part record. Thereafter, when creating the inventory part you could select multiple sites. You can go to the inventory part record change the Part type as you wish. You could notice the same Master part would be linked to both the Purchase and Manufactured part in the two Sites 

Hi @Carole ,

Yes, that is possible. Make sure to select the correct “Part Type” when you are transferring.

After transferring;

Does this clarify your question ?

Hi Carole,

By the way you cannot have different Inventory Part nos in both sites only you can change is the “Part Type” either to manufactured or purchased.

I.e. What possible is below as explained above too.

Engineering part, eg : Part-A, 

I.e. site-1, it is Part-A (manufactured) then 

site-2, it is Part-A (purchased) as described above.

What NOT possible is;

engineering part, eg : Part-A, 

In site-1, it is Part-A (manufactured)

In site-2, it is Part-B (purchased)

Here in both Inventory part table and Engineering pars table, the Primary key is Part_No hence you cannot have different Part Nos for inventory but it should be same.

Hope this helps.

/Kasun

@Kasun Manuranga , that confirms what I think. The primary key is Part_no and so the part number must be the same on both sites. 

Thank you to all  for your help !

Good afternoon,

I discovered this Engineering Part between Master Part and Inventory Part. In which way do you use Engineering Part?

Part in Developpement phase before to land to the plant and to be created as Inventory Part?

thanks for your support.

Yes, the Engineering Part is typically used only by the Engineering group to create products either as single part number representations (if buying a commercial part) or as a structure where multiple parts go together to make a product (either purchased or manufactured).  Master Part is always the top level and must always exist.  Inventory Part is the manufacturing version of a part and holds all of the attributes and information needed to procure, store, manage, cost, and deliver to customers.   The Inventory Part is child item to the Master Part and there is one Inventory Part record per IFS Site so the part can be managed differently in each site.

Engineering Part then is also a child to the Master Part, but used in a different manner.  it is Site independent, meaning there is only one record for each part number.  The engineering part and the structure built underneath it - if required - can be transferred to one or more sites.

If you do your Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) process within IFS, you’ll need to use the Engineering Part.  If you do your PLM process in another application and only import the info into IFS, you could conceivably bypass the Engineering Part and its functionality (we operate this way).

Thank you for your answer, is there a possibility to connect this engineering part to an existing Work Center, with a routing?

OUr idea is to create Engineering Part during the RFQ phase and R&D phase,  and we would like to see the Work Center machine and Labor Load in the S&OP. 

We do our Product Life Cylde in an other system (PLM in fact) and we manually transfer Product Structure from PLM to IFS, We were not able to connect both system until now, mainly because in PLM, we have the engineering BOM and Manufacturing BOM, but the way we organized our shopfloor (Work Center, ...), in IFS we create kind of Logistic BOM, (Flat BOM for each Work center to issue (backflush) material from the inbound location. 

Does someone  have any experience on connecting PLM with IFS?

I think you are only going to be able to do this if you are also creating the inventory part along with the engineering part.  It is possible to do so, but means your quoting engineer will be dipping into the manufacturing side a bit.

Another possibility is to add a persistent custom field on the engineering part that allows picking the work center and setting a time, but in our experience on the quoting side, a generic field for mechanical and electrical time that later gets broken down to the actual work center time works better.

Here is a bit of description of how we’ve done an interface, but in a slightly different context.

I will say, it took two years to have the interface written the first time by a third party consultant and we then had to re-write it ourselves to go from V8 to V9 which took another 6 months.  So the undertaking of a full interface is not a small thing.