- - Knowledge base
Product Updates
Events
Groups
Feedback

Community
Search

Replies posted by ttzeleznik

29 Replies

Newest first

Oldest first

ttzeleznikSidekick

asked in Getting Started with IFS

Purchase Requisition tied to a Work Order and MRP Interaction

@Marcel.Ausan Thanks for the suggestions. Switching to Plan Meth G failed as M; over supply:Tried Plan Meth B but the method doesn’t fit our needs since it doesn’t consider regular MMR demands or any demands I believe:I also for on the IFS Documentation, ….../ifsdoc/documentation/en/Planning/AboutMrp.htm : Thoughts? I’m thinking Bug Case to IFS……Thank you, Troy

ttzeleznikSidekick

asked in HCM (Human Capital Management, Payroll)

Time Registration Aware Modules - by Company

@Magnus Johansson Thank You! I suspected it was global, not seeing any company identifiers. But “forcing” one company’s needs on to another seemed odd to me, for IFS, especially this far along. That’s why I’m checking with the “Community.”We are (still) in IEE. Therefore, I suspect Security and Permissions could be used for masking? I did take a quick peek but decided to check on the easy path (company driven) first before looking elsewhere.Thanks Again, Troy

ttzeleznikSidekick

asked in HCM (Human Capital Management, Payroll)

Work 36 hours, Get Paid For 40 hours

But now new question/issue,…… How do I stop the Mfg Time Diff. from tracking the “inflated” time result? I need it to compare on 12 hrs worked, not the 13.33 hours paid which is what it is doing. Answer: Use Wage Code Type “Increment”

ttzeleznikSidekick

asked in HCM (Human Capital Management, Payroll)

Work 36 hours, Get Paid For 40 hours

Hi @ADDMARIAE ,Thank you!! I was able to get your suggestion to work using Increment Schedules. I’m now trying to understand which method - seems both provide same result:Fixed with a 1.33 hr per day adder Calculated with a factor of 0.1111But now new question/issue,…… How do I stop the Mfg Time Diff. from tracking the “inflated” time result? I need it to compare on 12 hrs worked, not the 13.33 hours paid which is what it is doing.Thanks for your help, Troy

ttzeleznikSidekick

asked in HCM (Human Capital Management, Payroll)

Work 36 hours, Get Paid For 40 hours

Hi @ADDMARIAE Sorry for delayed response here. Yes, we are clocking based time reporting. As you mention, “increment schedules and a factor of normal time” sounds like a solution. I’m diving in to look at this.I’m new to the HR Module (we just lost our knowledge expert, I’m filling those shoes) but do have a long history in other modules IFS.

MbourretDo Gooder (Customer)

asked in Supply Chain

Invoicing partial deliveries with package part

I was able to get some clues from IFS Help here:… /ifsdoc/documentation/en/Sales/AboutReservationManagement.htmDo a Find on: “Incomplete Packages Not Allowed”

MbourretDo Gooder (Customer)

asked in Supply Chain

Invoicing partial deliveries with package part

Hello @Mbourret Seems IFS allows invoicing based on the number of delivered BoM's. For example, on a Package Part line with qty 1 and a Package Part Structure (BoM) of five different part numbers, each with qty 1; until all five part numbers are delivered (making up 1 complete BoM), the line is not invoiceable.See the attached for screen shots.Also included in the attached is an example of a Package Part line with qty 3. The screen shots show how "Invoiceable" goes for 1 to 2 as enough parts are delivered to complete 2 BoM's.Short of separating each component out into it’s own Customer Order Line (and sales part) - perhaps Milestone Billing would be a work-a-round? Just a thought…….Hope that helps. Cheers, Troy

ttzeleznikSidekick

asked in Service (Touch Apps, MWO, MRO)

Maintenance/Service Employee Overhead Cost

Hi @janise,Yep! That’s what we were looking for and are now designing it into our implementation.WOW - good ol Aurora. That was a big step from Centura!!Cheers, Troy

ttzeleznikSidekick

asked in Service (Touch Apps, MWO, MRO)

Maintenance/Service Employee Overhead Cost

@janise, @taradean , @sarafoster, @Hashini Kodippili,Hello, We figured it out / found the answer!!!!! Yes, IFS does support overhead rates for service labor. We first looked at “Control Types per Posting Type Analysis” where service Labor postings of this sort should exist; they did, TO1 & TO2. (POSTING_TYPE = 'TO1' or POSTING_TYPE = 'TO2'). We found this page in HELP (searched on “Cost Source”):ifsdoc/documentation/en/Accrul/tbwCtrlTypePostTypeOvw.htmWhich pointed us to: Cost Details Basic Data screen. At this time we are using the Maint.Org as the cost driver, not “fixed.” These two seem to be the only OvrHd Cost Drivers for service labor OvrHd. 🤔Please add any thoughts, details, and solutions since some of these are new postings in “10” and there will be others looking for this information.Cheers, Troy

ttzeleznikSidekick

asked in Service (Touch Apps, MWO, MRO)

Maintenance/Service Employee Overhead Cost

@janise Janne, Thanks. I’m very familiar with “Work Task Labor Cost”. Unfortunately, what I’m actually asking about here is “Work Task Labor Overhead Cost”. As I mention above, “similar to manufacturing labor OH.” What I’m looking for but in terms of a WO/WT:If manufacturing includes overhead costs, why doesn’t “service” include overhead (labor) cost? Is this an IFS oversight? If WO/WT’s do not include “service” labor overhead costs, I’m open to thoughts around tricking IFS into providing the result I’m looking for.Cheers, Troy

ttzeleznikSidekick

asked in Buying (Procurement, Demand Planner, ASC, SRM)

Have "The Business" Control Who can Create Purchase Requisitions

@ShawnBerk Yep, that is what we are trying accomplish but we also want to control who can save a newly created PR; we want that control to be in the “hands” of the company controller who has “normal“ operational user access. This would take IT out of the decision loop and action loop. How can this be done?

ttzeleznikSidekick

asked in Finance (Financials)

Work Task - Pre Accounting - Mandatory

@JJäthing in IFS Native HELP the Reposting feature is described here. You just need to fill in your “local leading string”………./ifsdoc/documentation/en/WorkTaskManagement/AboutRepostingWorkTaskTransactions.htm“repost” help

ttzeleznikSidekick

asked in Finance (Financials)

Work Task - Pre Accounting - Mandatory

@Thommy , @JJäthing Please refer to the release documentation for App10 regarding the new transaction handling for Work Task (including the new reporting functionality) to get a deeper knowledge in this area. Thommy - can you be more specific on where this information can be found? Somewhere in F1 help where any IFS user can access? With such a significant change in this IFS Module, it would seem quite the important to have this easily accessible to users. The closest I could find is attached but there doesn’t seem to be any “deep knowledge”.

ttzeleznikSidekick

asked in Finance (Financials)

Work Task - Pre Accounting - Mandatory

@JJäthing :As mentioned above - here’s an update from my (bug) case:If the posting type T57 (Pre Accounting Work Task) is set to control type C58 (Mandatory Pre Posting) Work Task can be released without entering Pre Posting. System is asking Pre Posting when Work Task is set to Finished status. This makes sense since the functionality with Work Task is to allow changes in Object ID and Pre Posting until Work Task is finished. Thus pre posing will be altered when object changed as well. The transactions will be updated with new pre-postings through the reposting functionality. Therefore, we don't think we should restrict to have mandatory pre-posting before WT is released.However, the same behavior should be aligned with WO as well. Thus we will need to do a correction for the WO, where the system will allow to release the WO, but not to finish until pre-posting is updated.In other words, our conclusion is the behavior with WT is accepted and similar behavior should be applied for the

ttzeleznikSidekick

asked in Finance (Financials)

Work Task - Pre Accounting - Mandatory

@Yasanthi Gunawardena @Nethmini KosvinnaThanks but I’m going to enter a BUG case. Mandatory Preposting should work the same as the WO, Customer Ord., etc, i.e., Release is not allowed until Preposting is entered. Further testing shows at the WO level, the WO cannot be release until Mandatory Preposting is entered. The same for Customer Ord.s etc, … Release is not allowed until Preposting entered Will update post when Case is addressed Thanks

Nipun GunaratneSidekick (Employee)

asked in Document Management (DocMan)

Documentation - Permission Set "Activities"

@Nipun Gunaratne, @Mathias Dahl ,So the problem I have with, “let's discuss instead what use cases you have where you had to guess, and solve that the way we meant it to be solved...” is the next time I have to solve a (possible) Activities issue, I’ll have to enter an IFS case. That case, a question, will be dispositioned as a “Training Issue“ and I’ll be dead-ended. That is the first part about of how we got here. After I filled out the Customer Satisfaction survey (lucky enough to get one), Thanuja R. (Manager in Global Support Organization ) was gracious enough to reopen my case “to fully fix the reported issue”. And so I’d like to understand each Activity’s function within the component:DOCMAN EQUIP WOGiven the more than 350 undocumented Activities, the above is significantly less than that.Thanks, Troy

ttzeleznikSidekick

asked in Framework & Experience (Infrastructure, Cloud, Integration, Dev Tools)

Permissions - Activities

See this Post, too:

Nipun GunaratneSidekick (Employee)

asked in Document Management (DocMan)

Documentation - Permission Set "Activities"

Hi @Mathias Dahl, See my previous post here which ended up as this post after I entered an Internet Support Center “Request Case”. As you can see, my post has nothing.I’m aware of and have reviewed Foundation1/040_administration/210_security/020_permission_sets/reference_itd/ feature_activities.htm Those have links within the application and can be understood via context. What I’m trying to understand are the other 2/3’s, the activities which aren’t listed on the Foundation1 page.My goal is to understand the tools I have as the Permissions Sets Administrator. For example, a while back I spent 7 hr.s in trial and error testing until I found the four Activities necessary to solve: “The URL ( ) of IFS Enterprise Explorer Feature for MS Reporting Services is incorrect or needs to be set”. Management found it hard to believe I had to “Trial and Error” because there is no backing (Help) documentation.Grouping Activities by Components we find a Document Management folder with over 45

ttzeleznikSidekick

asked in Products (Manufacturing, Products, Engineering)

MRB Case Status; IFS9 vs. IFS10

Hi @Björn Hultgren Thanks for the explanation, it’s good to hear about changes due to customer input. 🙂Since IFS 9 (and maybe 7.5 {we skipped 8}) MRB was created in the “In Process” status when RMB off Shop Ord line. Our users are accustom to that behavior and are trying to immediately attach Inspection lines. Now in “10” they are confused about being blocked because the MRB head needs to be “Opened”. It’s something they never had to do and is now an extra step. This is not a big deal - just IFS10 upgrade “growing pains”. Cheers, Troy

DBowdenDo Gooder (Customer)

asked in Framework & Experience (Infrastructure, Cloud, Integration, Dev Tools)

Error when creating site

@DBowden We are in the middle of upgrade Apps9 to Apps10UPD13. We found those items on a “missing” tab. See thisI entered a case - Jan. 25. Haven’t heard anything yet. Note I’m in UPD13 and still not corrected…..

ttzeleznikSidekick

asked in Framework & Experience (Infrastructure, Cloud, Integration, Dev Tools)

System Definitions / Object Property Tab - Apps10 UPD13

@Himasha Abeywickrama, Thanks for having a look at my post. I believe the link provided is internal to IFS network infrastructure?? It would note open: Also wondering if you saw a recent, similar post of mine:where I’m looking for a detailed description of each “un-referenced” Activity? I’ve a Doc. Management issue to solve and I suspect part of the solution will include understanding the “scope” of the Doc. Management Activities.Thanks, Troy

arebbeadleHero (Customer)

asked in Framework & Experience (Infrastructure, Cloud, Integration, Dev Tools)

How to grant permission for conditional formatting

Hi @arebbeadle,I’ve spent some time mapping those types items. It seems like you might be interested in Conditional Fields & Custom Objects (User Access and Control)I’m not sure these are “Out of the Box” but RMB “Show Grantees” will get you that info. Hope this helps….Cheers, Troy

ttzeleznikSidekick

asked in Buying (Procurement, Demand Planner, ASC, SRM)

Site / Inventory / Inventory Part Planning? Ver10 UDP13

@Tharaka Senevirathne Thanks! Your screen shot showing four tabs is what I thought we should see too. We see only three. Our “Inventory Part Planning” tab seems to be “invisible” and inactive. On my screen shot you can see (over to the right-middle) the one tab marked (checked) as visible is “Inventory Part Planning”. While the data elements are visible, the tab is invisible and not available ( clickable ). I’ll submit a case. Thanks again for your help.Cheers, Troy

ttzeleznikSidekick

asked in Framework & Experience (Infrastructure, Cloud, Integration, Dev Tools)

Permissions - Activities

@Shan Peiris - Thanks, I’ve been all over that area of help. I’m looking for something like this, System Privileges, except listing all the Activities. Cheers, Troy

ttzeleznikSidekick

asked in Buying (Procurement, Demand Planner, ASC, SRM)

Purchase Order, E-Mail Order RMB, PDF Filename

Well, as it turns out, IFS decided this issue is a Bug and and corrected in Apps 10 UPD 9 onwards. We are on Apps 10 UPD 8 going to Apps 10 UPD 10. Our UPD10 testing caught the filename difference. A little confused, we submitted a case to understand what changed:What you are experiencing is based on a Patch (Bug ID: 151107) which is included from Apps 10 UPD 9 onwards. The bug description is as follows,Bug Title: PDF File Name when sending email from purchase order and other documents should be renamed as <Report_Title>.<Order_No/Invoice_NoRnD Solution: Technology has provided a new parameter called PDF_FILE_NAME through bug 116342 (Apps 8 onwards)for PDF_REPORT_CREATED event. The report title together with the Order_No/Invoice_No will be passed to this parameter whenever a report is emailed. The correction focuses only reports generated using the RMB Email <report_title>. Thanks and Regards, Yeshan Problem solved……

1
2

Page 1 / 2

Badges

TMurphyNShas earned the badge 5th Topic
TMurphyNShas earned the badge 5th Reply
TMurphyNShas earned the badge 1st Reply
gb004has earned the badge 1st Reply
Melrosehas earned the badge 5th Reply

Show all badges

Powered by Gainsight

Terms & Conditions Cookie settings

Sign up

Already have an account? Login

Login as an IFS Employee

or

Username (Do not use your email as a username.) *

Email Address (Use your work email address.) *

Name *

Company *

Account Number

(Private)

Only you and moderators can see this information

Job Title *

Member Type *

IFS Employee IFS Partner IFS Customer Just Visiting

Products Used

(Private)

Only you and moderators can see this information

IFS Cloud IFS Applications FSM PSO Maintenix Fleet Planner Alliance FieldCentrix assyst MWM Other

Country

Password *

I accept the terms & conditions

loginBox.register.email_repeat

Login to the community

No account yet? Create an account

Login as an IFS Employee

or

Username or Email

Password

Remember me

Forgot password?

Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.

Username or e-mail

Back to overview

Scanning file for viruses.

Sorry, we're still checking this file's contents to make sure it's safe to download. Please try again in a few minutes.

OK

This file cannot be downloaded

Sorry, our virus scanner detected that this file isn't safe to download.

OK