Structure and Routing alternates dependencies

Adrian,

I agree with your options and one way to automate it is to have a custom field on the customer order that dictates which alternate you should use so that a custom event could then be created to switch the routing once created.

This would then minimise the chance of error, but still give you the option to override it if necessary.

Regards,
Antony

Thank you, Anthony.

Do you think is still there a chance to not use any custom events? 

This is something small, just one Top Item for hundreds we create, do we don't wanna set a special event for just this one part.

If there is no other choice than that, I think we preferable may take an option with creating actually separate part numbers

I was also thinking about maybe using DOP orders? 

We don’t use them for now but we investigate the benefits of implementing them, this one could be a testing example :)

What do you think?

Maybe setting the part up as configurable might also be an option. And the configuration on the CO Line controls the structure / routing.

Hmmm, since the fit, form, and function will be the same, I would suggest against creating separate part numbers.

You can go down down the configurable route, but this will need rules setting up and maintaining but will be standard and will avoid anyone accidently not entering the data.

So I suggest you workshop it first and see what feels best!

Regards,
Antony

DOP is an interesting idea for this, and if it is one of few parts in many, then I would simply change the DOP structure alternates for this.

Don’t forget that routing lot sizes can be used to control smaller routings too - but of course it depends on the context.

We decided to go with configurator with 2 different parts + alternate part settled for these

Simplicity is also a value here :)

Thank you once again for all of the answers

Adrian,

Glad you got a solution in the end, and happy to help!

Regards,

Antony