New to Epicor. We have WIP that doesn’t functionally move forward when the product goes through an outside operation (x-ray, etc.). We get the error that the previous operation is 0 units and cannot proceed. Where in the system do we address this (options that need to be set? is there a simple work around (po receipt process)?) Please advise. Thank you
If you have the outside operation setup as a subcontract operation, then a PO is needed and the movement is taken care of by the subcontract shipment out and the subcontract receipt back in.
If you have the Advanced Material Module you may be getting move requests for this WIP as well, so the Material Move Queue is another spot to look, but only if you have that module.
Also, with AMM you need to have the resource group in and out bins setup to move the WIP. So you should check the subcontract resource group to see what that has there.
Like Brad mentioned, the subcontract operation is a good solution. It can work with the shipping to the outside vendor, and when received back in can go right back to the job.
We are creating the PO and receiving against it, is it possible that we’re not creating the PO correctly (against the outside operation in the router, or the vendor has to be specified in the router, e.g.) such that the system isn’t recognizing the WIP movement?
Here is the issue: We see the subcontract complete, but since it’s sub-contract, it is looking for a labor quantity complete before allowing the next step to process. See .jpg
Yes, that was my thinking. I come from a Global Shop Solutions background and they actually have an option to ignore outside operations for material movement verification. How can I create this BPM? feel free to point me to a tutorial rather than babysit me.
He’s saying that there is a BPM created, because that error doesn’t look like a standard epicor error message. If you go to Method Directive maintenance and choose directive group you should see a list of all of the BPM that are in your system. You can look through those and find the offender.
You were correct. A BPM was incorrectly done that wasn’t looking at the right field values. We’ve just gotten it corrected to ignore outside operations for movement. Thanks for your help.