MacolaHelp
Instructor
Has anyone programmed around the fact that, if using bins & lots together, that the only issue method supported in progression 7x is sequential bin? Even if you have earliest expiration SL on or priority bin issuance, the program will do nothing but sequential. It's broken, bug reported & not even slated for correction or on the drawing board in version 8. How does a food or pharmaceutical company (some of our target industries) use the product if we can't issue our oldest product first and we have a big enough warehouse that we want to use random multiple bins? Are we supposed to constantly move our product to the lowest numbered bin?
During our testing phase, we had discovered that lot expiration wasn't used if binned, but we thought priority bin method was working. Unfortunately, we must have just happened to have the lowest bin priority on the lowest numbered bin, so we didn't discover this limitation until we converted their entire warehouse over to bins & lots. The project took 5 days to complete using the entire company staff & 2 days of my time. Needless to say, the owner is very unhappy. I have asked that this limitation be included in the inventory documentation & on line help. No infomine articles existed about this subject as of 7/28.
My primary problem lies in the issuance of work orders. I have to turn on issue components in PP setup in order to get the bins & lots my mfg people need on the work order to use the oldest stock first. To replicate all that macola does during the issuance of product when printing the work order would be a huge undertaking due to the number of files affected during the release & print process.
Any ideas out there would be greatly appreciated. Since my client implemented MRP in order to support the bin/lot issuance methodology, they are feeling "oversold". I can't really blame them for feeling that way. We all know any software is buggy, but this combo of bins/lots & its processing in POP is pretty clunky. I'm amazed that there isn't more than one bug report out there on this subject. It used to be that we could add to an existing bug report to make our collective voices move a correction up in priority, but I haven't discovered a way to do that yet in the eSynergy workflow. Last time I asked support to add my client to a pre-existing bug request, they said they couldn't do that anymore.
And, if you are monitoring, Mr. Rose, please note that I am going through the macola sales & support channel to try to find out if we can come up with a solution for these folks. If you can expedite some action on their behalf, you will have my thanks for a job well done. I'm not sure what you intended on the "pay me now or pay me later" comment in the ES thread, but I don't charge my clients for bugs & breaks in the software or my time to research it unless it is something unique to their environment or business. In this case, the idea of using random multiple bins and lotting simultaneously seems a very reasonable assumption in today's world. Whatever solution we might find for them programmatically will cost some $$. I assume the client will pay the tab for that if they are willing.
During our testing phase, we had discovered that lot expiration wasn't used if binned, but we thought priority bin method was working. Unfortunately, we must have just happened to have the lowest bin priority on the lowest numbered bin, so we didn't discover this limitation until we converted their entire warehouse over to bins & lots. The project took 5 days to complete using the entire company staff & 2 days of my time. Needless to say, the owner is very unhappy. I have asked that this limitation be included in the inventory documentation & on line help. No infomine articles existed about this subject as of 7/28.
My primary problem lies in the issuance of work orders. I have to turn on issue components in PP setup in order to get the bins & lots my mfg people need on the work order to use the oldest stock first. To replicate all that macola does during the issuance of product when printing the work order would be a huge undertaking due to the number of files affected during the release & print process.
Any ideas out there would be greatly appreciated. Since my client implemented MRP in order to support the bin/lot issuance methodology, they are feeling "oversold". I can't really blame them for feeling that way. We all know any software is buggy, but this combo of bins/lots & its processing in POP is pretty clunky. I'm amazed that there isn't more than one bug report out there on this subject. It used to be that we could add to an existing bug report to make our collective voices move a correction up in priority, but I haven't discovered a way to do that yet in the eSynergy workflow. Last time I asked support to add my client to a pre-existing bug request, they said they couldn't do that anymore.
And, if you are monitoring, Mr. Rose, please note that I am going through the macola sales & support channel to try to find out if we can come up with a solution for these folks. If you can expedite some action on their behalf, you will have my thanks for a job well done. I'm not sure what you intended on the "pay me now or pay me later" comment in the ES thread, but I don't charge my clients for bugs & breaks in the software or my time to research it unless it is something unique to their environment or business. In this case, the idea of using random multiple bins and lotting simultaneously seems a very reasonable assumption in today's world. Whatever solution we might find for them programmatically will cost some $$. I assume the client will pay the tab for that if they are willing.