Changing the Route Order for Report Picking of Pick Lines Sequence
We need to change the way our warehouse personnel pick parts from the warehouse. I believe the way we setup our warehouse locations when we first launched IFS may be the problem. This is one of our warehouse locations: 4012A. We assigned 40 to the row, 12 to the Tier and A to the Bay. So the row is correct. But the Bay or column should really be 12 and the Tier or level should really be A. This mis-assignment is causing our picking sequence to be inefficient. I believe the IFS default route order is Bay first then Row.
So in our current situation a picker is routed to pick all parts in Bay A, row 40 first before picking any parts in Bay B, row 40. So essentially the picker is having to loop back to the beginning of Row 40 every time that person has to start picking from a different Bay.
How do we change the Route Order so that we can pick by Tier first, then row since we are just reversing the default route order due our assignment problem? I was looking at the IFS documentation and it says you change the route order in Warehouse Navigator, but it doesn’t give further instructions.
Another question is how do we configure the pick sequence if let’s say Row 40 and Row 41 share the same aisle but want the picking sequence to sort the pick list by Tier (in our setup) for that aisle.
Page 1 / 1
Hi,
This is how the pick list is sorted against you warehouse structure:
WAREHOUSE_ROUTE_ORDER Ascending,
BAY_ROUTE_ORDER Ascending,
ROW_ROUTE_ORDER Ascending,
TIER_ROUTE_ORDER Ascending,
BIN_ROUTE_ORDER Ascending,
LOCATION_NO Ascending
You can edit the route order freely on the different levels in your warehouse structure to achieve whatever sorting you desire.
Best Regards
Fredrik
Thank you very much for your response. But I still don’t know where it is done. Is it Warehouse Navigator?
Thanks,
Issy
It is an attribute on Warehouse, Bay, Row, Tier and Bin. You can edit on these objects either on the stand-alone pages for these objects e.g. the Warehouses page, The Warehouses Bays page, or in the warehouse navigator on each level. In the General tab you see the value of the selected object level and you then have the overview of the level beneath that where you can edit.
Some examples:
Thanks for the explanation. I think I understand now how to change the route order at each level. But maybe I was not clear enough. Because we configured our Bays and Tiers incorrectly, I am not able to change my Bays because my Bays are supposed to be my Tiers. So I really don’t need to change the route order at any level. I just need to change the warehouse route order structure itself.
Default IFS Warehouse Route Order Structure
WAREHOUSE_ROUTE_ORDER Ascending,
BAY_ROUTE_ORDER Ascending,
ROW_ROUTE_ORDER Ascending,
TIER_ROUTE_ORDER Ascending,
BIN_ROUTE_ORDER Ascending,
LOCATION_NO Ascending.
I need the structure to be change to the below. In other words, re-order Tier_Route_Order and Bay_Route_Order.
WAREHOUSE_ROUTE_ORDER Ascending,
TIER_ROUTE_ORDER Ascending,
ROW_ROUTE_ORDER Ascending,
BAY_ROUTE_ORDER Ascending,
BIN_ROUTE_ORDER Ascending,
LOCATION_NO Ascending.
Thanks,
Issy
Example of one of our locations that we configured incorrectly, where A is our Bay and 1 is our Tier. But in actuality, A is our Tier and 1 is our Bay. Most of our rows have 14 Bays or columns (1-14), and 4 Tiers or levels (A-D). If Re-Ordering the Warehouse Route Order Structure is not doable, what are our options other than to do a massive inventory movement exercise because Bays and Tiers are not editable.
@Fredrik Johansson LKP I guess that will be a problem for @eknock007 since the route order is hard coded and in many places. So giving option to change in this way would require a lot of restructuring of the whole route order sorting in Applications then.
@Fredrik Johansson LKP I guess that will be a problem for @eknock007 since the route order is hard coded and in many places. So giving option to change in this way would require a lot of restructuring of the whole route order sorting in Applications then.
The sorting is hard coded as I mentioned in comment, so the option is to change the route order field through the objects warehouse, bay, row, tier and bin. This is an editable field on all levels to get it sorted exactly as desired. Of course it can be some effort if you need to restructure and edit it through the levels.
If its easier you can set the same route order on all levels and then ultimately add the exact sequence between the locations in the bin level route order.
@eknock007
These can be updated via a handful of simple Migration Jobs.
As Fredrik mentioned, the Route order is editable for each hierarchical level of the Warehouse Structure. Natively, when you create a new Bay, Row, or Tier, IFS maps the ID of that object to the Route Order.
For example, if your Bay = A, then the Route Order = A. While there is underlying logic to sort this, my recommendation to users is to decouple your ID with your Route Order.
In the example above, your Bay can still be equal to A, but I would recommend your Route Order is equal to a numeric value identified as a multiple (i.e., 10 or 20 to allow for addition of new locations at a later stage).
I find it easier to update the values in the overview pages (i.e., Warehouse Bays, Warehouse Rows, Warehouse Tiers, and Inventory Locations).
Since it sounds like you’re live in a production environment, I’d recommend updating the data in either your Buildplace or a Useplace testing environment (i.e. CFG or UAT) and running functional tests before updating directly in production.
@Fredrik Johansson LKP, @Dario Zani, @astfarazt
Thanks all for your responses. From what I read above, there might some options to getting our routing corrected based based on how we configured our locations. Currently, our order routing is manageable, but the fear is that as our customer order volume increases and customer order lines subsequently increase as well, that the routing will become noticeably more inefficient. We do have a UAT test environment, so we will try and test some of the suggestions mentioned above.
