The minimum requirement is to have a repair structure in buildable state. This is to indicate the part can be repaired. It can be empty and you add material as required directly on the shop order. A repair routing is not needed, you can add the operations required directly to toe shop order.

Interestingly, I’ve just created a Repair SO (Apps9) for a part that has no Repair Structure or Routing at all.  I got a couple of “there’s no stucture/routing” messages but it didn’t stop the SO from being created…

I would agree with Linda, but I am getting the error below so assumed it was because I was missing a route or PS for repair.  I read another comment where it may be a calendar with *, but I am not seeing where a * calendar is associated with the resource I am trying to attach.  Is there somewhere else I should look for this calendar?

Robin

The error message is raised since theres not enough capacity on the work center to schedule the operations from the routing backwards from the shop order need date to the phase in date of the work center resource. 

Even if you could save a repair shop order without a repair structure, I think you will get an error if you have not added a structure revision before the shop order receipt. 

Thanks Bjorn.  I am reaching out to our IT department to figure out what is going on.  

Yes, we get an error (warning), but we tested manually inputting the structure revision to bypass the need for a buildable repair structure and it worked.  At first glance, there were no issues with transactions.

I will follow up on this once I am able to work with the IT team to troubleshoot the error.

Thanks again for your input. 

Robin

Potentially somewhere in your Work Center setup - particularly this one that is Resource...

Or buried somewhere in the depths of the setup of Calendar/Schedule/Exception Code

I figured out my capacity issue (user error).  The results from my testing are that I can create a shop order without a repair structure or routing.  I can manually enter the revision level for the structure, and then once the operation is entered, I can connect the operation number to the material line.  Transactions do not seem impacted doing it this way.

The impact I am seeing is that I cannot systematically split a repair order that is created without a repair structure.  This should not be of material consequence to our facility because these are an exception process and not part of everyday production.  

I will continue testing to understand my consequences, but for now, I think my question is answered.

Thank you both for your help @PRODQ and @Björn Hultgren !

Robin

You’re welcome!  Good luck with the testing.

Linda

I see in EE where one can do what was motioned previously of just entering a revision value in the shop order Detail for when a Repair product structure does not exist. This repair shop order could be received into stock in EE.

This manual entry of a revision value not work in Cloud, however, at least it does not in my 23R1 world. Also, the repair product structure must exist in a Buildable status to facilitate receipt.

As part of the process, when setting a Product Structure alternate to Buildable, would it be too much trouble to create a Repair structure for the same revision at this time. Since the Repair structure alternate can be blank AND buildable, I think it should reasonable to do so.

Hi Matt.  Thank you for your input and testing on this.  We are using EE at the present time, so I did not do testing on the cloud version.  Good to know.

Setting up a repair structure for every item we create in anticipation of a failure seems cumbersome.  

Is IFS looking at coming up with a repair process that is meant to be an exception process, with no changes to master data?  Of the things I have learned about IFS so far (granted, I am early in my journey), this one makes me scratch my head the most.  I understand that some industries do only repairs.  For those having master data updated makes sense.  For our business we only repair when there is a failure in the initial production process. 

Am I using the wrong IFS functionality here?  

Robin

Not sure what is meant by “...with no changes to master data.”

In its simplest form:

1. Part A was produced on a manufacturing shop order and is in inventory awaiting shipment.
2. I need to change something or do additional work on it before it leaves the plant.
3. I want to track the cost of any additional materials and labor incurred during this ‘repair’.
4. I create a Product Structure of type Repair and set it to Buildable. I do not need any components in this product structure. I could list parts if I knew each time I did a repair it was always going to need the same list of parts from inventory, but that’s not always the case.
5. I create a repair shop order for Part A. By default, Part A is systematically added to the Materials tab. I issue Part A to the order and then determine what other parts I will need and manually add them to the Materials list and issue them from stock. Perform the repair and receive Part A back into stock.

Hi Matt.  Yes, I have historically known PS (BOM), Route, Part (Item) to be master data that is set for an item and only changed when the process or materials to manufacture the part changes (part data can change for other reasons).  This master data is usually tightly controlled within a single department who understand the system use of the data and the consequences when the data is changed. 

When a non-standard event arises (i.e., manufactured defects), the shop order (job) addresses the need to repair or rework the parts within the job.  The master data team does not get involved as the issue is transactional, not associated with the part standards or standard processes. 

Hopefully this helps clarify my perspective and experience on ‘master data’.  

Thanks again for your help.  

Robin