ISTech Support Forum

ISTech Support Forum
http://www.istechforum.com/YaBB.pl
Evo-ERP and DBA Classic >> System Manager >> SM-J-B vs SM-J-E
http://www.istechforum.com/YaBB.pl?num=1160406265

Message started by Clyde_Jenkins on 10/09/06 at 07:04:25

Title: SM-J-B vs SM-J-E
Post by Clyde_Jenkins on 10/09/06 at 07:04:25

We operate in two modes. 1) We write SOs and convert them to WOs to build product to order. 2) We build to stock by writing WOs.

We have been writing build to stock WOs with WO numbers in a block starting with 5000-1. We are now up to 6000-1. But numbers greater than 6000 are the same as archived WOs that were created from SOs, then archived.

This didn't show up as a problem until we installed the 8/11/06 upgrade recently.

I've come up with the following options:
1) Reindex all WO files using UT-C. It's not clear that this will help my problem.
2) Purge the 6000 series of work orders. Then re-use this block.
3) Purge work orders from 1-1 to some number, say 2000, and re-use this block.

What's the best fix?

Title: Re: SM-J-B vs SM-J-E
Post by Clyde_Jenkins on 10/09/06 at 08:15:19

The problem that we're experiencing is in WO-A. When we look at a 6000 series WO we get this message:

"This Work Order Number already exists in the Archive WO files, please enter a different WO number."

We seem to be able to issue materials, release, and edit WO BOMs and Routings for the new 6000 series WOs. Also the correct information prints out on a Crystal Report we use to produce a work order schedule.

Will reindexing the WOxxxxx files fix this problem?

Title: Re: SM-J-B vs SM-J-E
Post by wildco on 10/09/06 at 10:48:28

MAKE A BACKUP FIRST!!! Make sure everyone else is signed out.

You may need to purge out all the old workorders (hopefully they are old enough that you wouldn't need to pull them up in DBA anymore). Once that is done, you ought to be able to reuse the work order numbers.

Then, reset the first work order numbers to 500000 and SO#s to 600000 in defaults.

This is our plan for when we run out of work order #s.

MAKE A BACKUP FIRST!!!

Title: Re: SM-J-B vs SM-J-E
Post by Lynn Pantic on 10/09/06 at 11:49:25

Reindexing will not fix it. You should not reuse numbers that exist in the archive file. You need to be using new numbers.

Title: Re: SM-J-B vs SM-J-E
Post by wildco on 10/10/06 at 10:45:46

What happens when you roll from 599999 to 600000 and 600000 is already used for another form?

For instance, Work orders start with a "5" and RFQs with a "6" for us.

Title: Re: SM-J-B vs SM-J-E
Post by David Waldmann on 10/10/06 at 11:08:23

Different forms with the same number don't matter.

In fact, the way DBA assigns the WO number when creating from a SO in SO-N is to assign the same number as the SO. Makes it a lot easier to match them up that way....

Title: Re: SM-J-B vs SM-J-E
Post by N_Clyde_Jenkins on 10/11/06 at 10:09:24

Thanks to all of the respondents to my request for help. Sure enough reindexing did not help. (Lynn's response came after I tried reindexing.) We are now writing all WOs that are not associated with SOs in a series starting with 900000.

We average about 2000 SOs per year and are currently using numbers in the 12000 series. So it should take about 444 years until we get a conflict with sales order numbers.

We also average about 2000 WOs per year. So it will be 50 years before we run out of numbers.

I'll be retired before either case comes up!