Work at SourceForge, help us to make it a better place! We have an immediate need for a Support Technician in our San Francisco or Denver office.

Close

Engineer-to-Order / BOM / Inventory

Help
omfgppc
2007-11-10
2013-03-08
  • omfgppc
    omfgppc
    2007-11-10

    Posted by: brrian
    Post Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 4:40 pm

    Postbooks seems tailored to make-to-order companies. We are engineer-to-order. Most of the products that we build will never be built again, so I would prefer not to build an inventory of parts that I'll never use again.

    Is it possible to create a "non-inventory" part to use in a BOM? I do not see a way to do so.

    Read more at : http://www.xtuple.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1358#1358

     
    • omfgppc
      omfgppc
      2007-11-10

      Posted by: jrogelstad
      PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:09 am   

      You are correct, all items on a BOM must be items with item site (inventory) settings. This is so because all cost accounting is handled through inventory account settings. It is also true that all items sold must be inventory with standard cost as well. Finally, consider that whole purpose of a BOM is to create a template for an item that will be repeatedly built, so it really isn’t an appropriate vehicle for ETO in the first place.

      However, version 2.3 will introduce a new concept of a “service” item which will presumed to have variable labor and materials on a job by job basis and will subsequently track and post actual costs to the order rather than standard. That will resolve one side of the equation because it will accommodate ETO work orders very well.

      What you probably would like is the ability to add a “purchase-to-order” item to an ETO work order. We don’t have plans to do that right now, but the development map for 3.0 is wide open so if you’d like to talk about that some more we’d be happy to.

      John

      Read more at: http://www.xtuple.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1358#1358

       
    • omfgppc
      omfgppc
      2007-11-10

      Posted by: dwaldmann
      PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:48 pm   

      I was shocked when I took a look at Peachtree's Manufacturing and you could only issue the actual item and quantity that was on the BOM. Is the use of Actual Costs not very normal in manufacturing software? We often even use completely different items than was on the BOM.

      dwaldmann

      http://www.xtuple.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1358#1358 

       
    • omfgppc
      omfgppc
      2007-11-10

      Posted by: rufusg2
      PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 4:54 am   

      jrogelstad wrote:
      I’m not sure what Peachtree does and doesn’t do, but I can say there are three classes of manufacturers: Repetitive, Make-to-Order and Engineer-to-Order.

      -snip-

      I'm not sure where we'd fit in. We have a relatively complex standard major product, in various sizes, with lots of customization requirements, inventory of replacement parts, component rebuilding, and jobber design, machining & fabrication.

      With most ERP/MRP systems, we don't.

      Repetitive doesn't nest work orders, per se. They bounce their stock level requirements against their stock levels and generate workorders to fill in the holes. Multilevel MRP explosions simply repeat the process. Make-to-order is similar, except the requirement comes from a sales order instead of a minimum stock level.

      ETO has nothing to bounce, and nothing to bounce against. There is no standard cost, standard BOM, standard parts or minimum stock level. There is a blank pad of paper. At the end of the day there is a pad of paper with a different list of costs on each page, and a tally at the end which tells you whether you're eating steak for dinner or just swallowing hard. During the day, the contents of each page will change; items get added or deleted, pages get stapled together then torn apart and stapled to something else as the project develops a physical reality. What starts as a single page with an order requirement becomes two pages, then 4, then 20 as the bigger project gets detailled into smaller nested sub-projects, each with its own life. Inventory levels, cost roll-ups are irrelevant. Needed parts and services are specified and need to be tracked - through the job requirements, not through a standard BOM with standard parts. Work orders and purchase orders with the ability to list
      any cost source are needed. Work orders list internal costs of POs, inventory requirements, other work orders. POs list outside costs from parts, services, or whatever. None of those received costs hit inventory, but since we're not putting value into inventory either at the close of the job, it's not in conflict with the repetitive or MTO standard BOM and inventory/costing functionality (even a work order for stock parts needs the ability to outsource by PO if a critical machine or worker gets incapacitated).

      time to take a breath Wink

      Adding ETO capabilities doesn't necessarily mean a lot of complexity, just flexibility in where the specs for a WO/PO line come from and where the resulting costs go. Do the specs come from a stock item definition, non-stock definition, localized definition? Do the related costs go to inventory value, COGS, expense account? Perhaps different work order types with different restrictions would help keep things simple enough to control in differing shops. Standard inventory BOMs can stay as they are; it's the ETO build list that needs the added flexibility, and that already exists as a WIP-attached work-order BOM.

      Not sure quite what you have in mind for "service" items. Stock items with fixed specs have a fixed BOM to make them, and a fixed standard cost to expect and compare to. If you mean a line item mapped to something outside inventory, then for a stock BOM it will still need a standard cost to roll up, not an assumed variability. Aside from that, it sounds promising.

      Read more at : http://www.xtuple.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1358#1358

       
    • omfgppc
      omfgppc
      2007-11-10

      Posted by: jrogelstad
      PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 10:50 am

      Adding ETO capability to xTuple applications will add complexity because it adds more choices that have to be thought through during implementation. If you implement multiple modes of manufacturing in your business it will be particularly complex because users have to be trained on various work flows. I.e. “ If this order is type A follow this process, if type B then follow that other process.” These kinds of issues are the reasons behind why ERP systems are so famously difficult to implement. It’s not because of the complexity of the software per say, it’s because of the complexity of the business rules being formalized in the system.

      In any case, the idea of the “Service” item is they will have no standard cost. Work Orders for service items will be hard-allocated to Sales Orders. Materials and Labor will be added on the fly and accumulated to WIP. They will not, however, be able to be received into inventory. They will be received and closed automatically when they are shipped, and all accumulated costs will be posted to the Cost of Sales account at that time.

      There are no plans for service orders to support make-to-order child work orders on this release, but since PostBooks supports this for BOM generated work orders, the basic infrastructure is there to add it. Neither do we support Purchase-to-job capability for one off purchased items, but again this is something we’d be happy discuss adding that could make a lot of sense for “Service” items.

      John

      Read more at : http://www.xtuple.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1358#1358 

       
    • omfgppc
      omfgppc
      2007-11-10

      Posted by: rufusg2
      PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:15 pm

      jrogelstad wrote:
      Adding ETO capability to xTuple applications will add complexity because it adds more choices that have to be thought through during implementation. If you implement multiple modes of manufacturing in your business it will be particularly complex because users have to be trained on various work flows. I.e. “ If this order is type A follow this process, if type B then follow that other process.” These kinds of issues are the reasons behind why ERP systems are so famously difficult to implement. It’s not because of the complexity of the software per say, it’s because of the complexity of the business rules being formalized in the system.

      In any case, the idea of the “Service” item is they will have no standard cost. Work Orders for service items will be hard-allocated to Sales Orders. Materials and Labor will be added on the fly and accumulated to WIP. They will not, however, be able to be received into inventory. They will be received and closed automatically when they are shipped, and all accumulated costs will be posted to the Cost of Sales account at that time.

      There are no plans for service orders to support make-to-order child work orders on this release, but since PostBooks supports this for BOM generated work orders, the basic infrastructure is there to add it. Neither do we support Purchase-to-job capability for one off purchased items, but again this is something we’d be happy discuss adding that could make a lot of sense for “Service” items.

      John

      lol. That's why I'm here, at the moment, to discuss it Wink

      We recently opened a workorder to track time and materials for a shop expansion of sorts. Non-stock (obviously) but non-sale as well. We still needed to track the associated costs, so pinning it to a sales order wouldn't be "appropriate". Still, though, an enhancement with value.

      Regarding complexity, limiting a feature can make a system easier to learn but also limits the utility to a company as it learns it and wants to use it more. At least the issues here don't mean a whole new category of data to track, they're enhancements to existing atomic functions with an existing manual shop equivalent.

      This is a game we just can't win ;>
      There is no "right answer"!

      Read more at : http://www.xtuple.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1358#1358 

       
    • omfgppc
      omfgppc
      2007-11-10

      Posted by: jrogelstad
      PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 6:17 pm

      rufusg2,

      Thanks for feedback. It sounds like you are live and running on PostBooks? If so, congratulations!

      We don't intend to limit features, I'm just pointing out that we like to minimize the level of complexity users have to contend with when and where possible when we implement new options.

      Do you have an interest in participating in a development effort to make full ETO a reality in PostBooks?

      John

      Read more at : http://www.xtuple.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1358#1358

       
    • omfgppc
      omfgppc
      2007-11-10

      Posted by: rufusg2
      PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 10:04 pm

      jrogelstad wrote:
      rufusg2,

      Thanks for feedback. It sounds like you are live and running on PostBooks? If so, congratulations!

      We don't intend to limit features, I'm just pointing out that we like to minimize the level of complexity users have to contend with when and where possible when we implement new options.

      Do you have an interest in participating in a development effort to make full ETO a reality in PostBooks?

      John

      Live? not even close Smile
      Just checking it out, and comparing it to the system we are moving to (and other available systems, since I don't really NEED a life ). I'm having similar discussions with them over similar topics, but with considerably more resistance. I'm disappointed that labour has been removed, and that the API is very limited in what it can access at the moment. Has a nice "feel" to it, though, and loads of potential (some of which, I'm sure, is tapped in openmfg).

      I'm not sure what I could offer the development since I'm not a coder. Would be interesting, though.

      Read more at : http://www.xtuple.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1358#1358

       
    • zb9999
      zb9999
      2007-12-29

      i think dbamanufacturing.com is really what you need