Skip to main content

 

When we create a new Structure Revision, IFS automaticaly asigns a phase-out date (“yesterday”) to the previous revision, while stamping a phase-in date (“today”) to the new revision. This seems practical but has some drawbacks:

The new revision is born as “Tentative”, as we plan to make changes on it. That is why we are making a revision ;-)

If the new revision is not finished in the same working day and set to “Buildable”, if it remains as work-in-progress for a while (“Tentative”), and MRP is run meanwhile,  the Part we are revising is found to have “Not Buildable” revision. And MRP considers there are no components for that part in the structure and triggers a lot of order cancellations as the materials are no longer required. 

 

In my view, a more logical approach would be to set the Phase-out of the previous revision and Phase-in of the current revision when changing the status of the structure revision from Tentative to Buildable. That is, dates are stamped when there is a new revision in Buildable, therefore, we do not have any date-gap where there is no valid Buildable structure for the manufactured part.

 

Can this be achieved in any way via configuration of IFS or custom event? 

 

Thanks in advance for the support,

Kind regards,

 

ikerarri.

 

Sounds reasonable. Please create a request for this in the Idea section!

Ok, I will repost it as an idea.

 

Hi,

For what it’s worth, these are my thoughts.

You can set the Phase In/Out date into the future, and when you’re ready to Phase In, you can bring the dates back as desired or let it Phase Out/In naturally.

Also, you could set the new MS to Plannable so it can continue to plan against the structure as is.

For the reason above, I wouldn’t be a fan of the Buildable status setting the Phase In, we use the Plannable status whilst processes are being updated prior to being made Buildable, therefore we need the Phase In date to be what we want it to be, not when the status is Buildable.

Cheers,

Wade

Hi,

For what it’s worth, these are my thoughts.

You can set the Phase In/Out date into the future, and when you’re ready to Phase In, you can bring the dates back as desired or let it Phase Out/In naturally.

Also, you could set the new MS to Plannable so it can continue to plan against the structure as is.

For the reason above, I wouldn’t be a fan of the Buildable status setting the Phase In, we use the Plannable status whilst processes are being updated prior to being made Buildable, therefore we need the Phase In date to be what we want it to be, not when the status is Buildable.

Cheers,

Wade

 

Hi Wade,

 

Thanks for your inputs. Appreciated. 

We do not use the Plannable status on MS, and will have a look. 

 

Best regards,

 

Iker A

 

 

Reply


Terms & ConditionsCookie settings