• Replies 2 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 7807 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

MPP Consumed Parts in Steps instead of Operations

AngelaIp

Hi,

you use MPP? And you want to use Consumed Parts in the Steps instead of Operations? And you do not want to spend more money on your implementation partner because you're tired of questionable half-done solutions of poor programming quality? Than you are right here!

When building a Process Plan, consumed elements appear in one block below Operations. For a more detailed work instruction it´s possible to use ‘Steps’. But it´s right now not possible, to assign consumed elements to Steps.
The current version works well for picking all relevant components that are needed for building a product. Thus our current process plans works very good for the people in the warehouse, but they are sometimes difficult to use for those who actually need to build the product.

The process plan doesn´t provide distinct informational, which material is actually required for each step. In complex process plans we often have to repeat information about the used resources in the Steps manually. E.g. in case an Operation contains 4 different types of screws, in each Step it is necessary to provide more precise information about the consumed Part again.

I already made some tests and it´s possible to assign assign Parts, Tools, Resources to ‘Steps’ instead of ‘Operations’. I already did most of the customization for the ProcessPlan renderings! But it´s still a lot of work! So I wonder if there is anybody else out there that wants to solve this use case?

Espcially I would need help to modify the correct codetree files, MBOM/EBOM comparison and especially help in debugging!
Anyone interested?

Angela

 

Parents

  • Hi,

    it´s near holiday season so I keep my answer short for now:

    1. Yes, I modified MPP so we can use Parts in Step. I mainly work with a 3rd layer for these Parts and role them up to the Operation Consumed Parts. End users can add their Parts to the Steps, but EBOM/MBOM validation is done on Operation level. From my POV, it´s the most "easiest" approach as you don´t have to rebuild the complete EBOM/MBOM validation. This one requires changes in some ItemTypes, Methods, Codetree, XML Schema Elements and one Form. Yes, it´s a hell of a customization.

    2. I have done some rollup of the cycle and setup time, so think you should be able to roll-up everything. As far as I remember there is even some forum post about this one available.

    3. I don´t use additional Document elements so far, but I think it´s possible to add an additional XML Schema Element for this one. I don´t think it´s hard to do, but you need to know how the MPP components sticks together (Methods, XML Schema, Codetree,..).

Reply

  • Hi,

    it´s near holiday season so I keep my answer short for now:

    1. Yes, I modified MPP so we can use Parts in Step. I mainly work with a 3rd layer for these Parts and role them up to the Operation Consumed Parts. End users can add their Parts to the Steps, but EBOM/MBOM validation is done on Operation level. From my POV, it´s the most "easiest" approach as you don´t have to rebuild the complete EBOM/MBOM validation. This one requires changes in some ItemTypes, Methods, Codetree, XML Schema Elements and one Form. Yes, it´s a hell of a customization.

    2. I have done some rollup of the cycle and setup time, so think you should be able to roll-up everything. As far as I remember there is even some forum post about this one available.

    3. I don´t use additional Document elements so far, but I think it´s possible to add an additional XML Schema Element for this one. I don´t think it´s hard to do, but you need to know how the MPP components sticks together (Methods, XML Schema, Codetree,..).

Children
No Data