6

Advanced scenarios may require a distinction between an “Operation finish” and “Production finish” as opposed to a single flushing principle “Finish”. This is hard to achieve through an extension to D365FO, as the respective enumeration is not extendable. For example, in a sophisticated environment where packing is performed by a robot, the last operation “Packing” is not managed by the Manufacturing execution module. The WHS “Report as finished” function is triggered as full boxes or pallets pass a simple photoelectric sensor or a bar code reader. While the preceding operations may be captured at the Job terminals, it might be tempting to backflush the packaging materials at the ‘non-operation’ Report as finished. This is not possible, because a material with no operation number is accredited to the first operation on the route. A split of the Finish flushing principle into 2 could have addressed this scenario: - Operation finish - Production finish where the mobile device only considered the latter. see http://erconsult.eu/blog/missing-flushing-principle/ for more details.

STATUS DETAILS
Needs Votes
Ideas Administrator

Thank you for your feedback. Currently this is not in our roadmap; however, we are tracking it and if we get more feedback and votes, we may consider it in the future.

 

Sincerely,

Johan Hoffmann

PM, Microsoft

Comments

E

Totally agree to Eugen

Category: Production Control