Re: [WebERP-developers] Bug? MRP for WO at reqdate instead of startdate

[Tim S. <ti...@we...>]

Hi Klaus,

On 27 May 2012 11:19, opto <bu...@op...> wrote:
> well -   possible answers:
>
> 1)
> Using WO required date for MRP PO clearly is a bug - even the manual says
> the items should be procured for WO start date. I will change that file in
> the next days

Agreed.

>
> 2) currently, any item can be only once per BOM. If it is used in two places
> at different times, I have to enter 2 required and the earliest time and
> procure both parts for that date (in the current implementation)

Yes, this was what I was commenting on in my previous mail. Personally
I would rather see us move away from the concept of a BOM to the
concept of a recipe. ie. Mixing a BOM and a route so you get a "You do
this with that at this point" rather than just a "you use this to make
that" approach. That is a lot of work though to change, and needs
thought as to how we safely transition the code.

>
> 3) the current MRP implementation prevents the use of weberp in the
> electronics industry (actually, you can find a similiar complaint about
> openerp in their forum). Part lists for electronic assemblies typically have
> component counts higher than 1 (like I need two resistors of 1 kiloohm
> value), and the CAD numbers them like R1, R7 to indicate their position n
> the circuit diagram. For clarity, it would be nice to reflect that in the
> BOM's, but after a short look at the code, this would need more serious
> consideration whether the current mrp.php needs to be changed.

Would the recipe concept I talked about cover this?

>
> 4) BOM's need a few custom fields to be usable in daily work (same for
> workorders).
> First, the BOM will correspond to a product number, will have a revision,
> documents, a staging URL, etc.
> Here, the current BOMs miss some mapping possibility to the actual
> engineering documents related to the BOM. You find that in other ERP/MRP
> software, and it should not be too difficult to add.

Agreed. Adding extra fields in the database for BOMs would not have to
complicate matters too much. I suggested in an earlier thread to Exson
that we could define a function that returned a BOM (in the current
format) based on a particular date. Then all we have to do is to use
this functionality wherever in the code we query the bom table (ok
there is a bit of work to do, but locating all the points shouldn't be
hard). I would suggest we looked at how we wanted to extend the bom
table, add in those fields, define this function I mentioned, then we
could start to incrementally improve the manufacturing functionality.

>
> just some more thoughts on the manufacturing implementation,
>
> Klaus
>

Thanks
Tim


-- 
WebERP Africa Ltd
+447710427049
+254706554559
www.weberpafrica.com
@TimSchofield2