We have receipts sometimes that don’t have correlating POs. With a PO, we get a receipt item we can view individually and attach additional data to. If we receive without a PO, we get a receipt code, but we can’t link to it.
We are doing this to link to inspection data. Without the receipt, it is hard (very hard) to find the inspection report because it seems to end up getting orphaned.
I can elaborate a bit more - or rather my man on the ground can. He writes:
Most potential PO receipt traceability issues are notified to the user before they can submit such an action. ie. receiving a part without specifying a PO# displays a message that no PO receipt was created.
Transferring a part from one bin to another when it’s not the entire bin quantity also notifies the user of potential PO traceability issues.
Merging bins also prompts of potential PO traceability issues.
etc.
The problem is, without some sort of anchor, we can’t get back to the inspections unless we record the inspection record number in a bonus field that gets written and passed with the part.
To make this work, we’d have to
Clear our untraceable inventory and re-receive it brand new using PO numbers
Every part transfer and movement would have to be to a unique bin. So that would mean our bin address format would be Letter-Number-Letter-Number–{UUID} example: A-1-B-2–a1d2f12d-0847-4da9-bc3a-151e5b19be05
This would guarantee inspection report traceability.
However, it would noticeably affect the efficiency of moving parts around in Cetec.
I am curious how other aviation companies that use Cetec handle this…"
Would it work to create a FIFOIX bonus column called ‘UUID’, make it searchable, and enter the UUID number upon receipt of the part? This way, you can search for the UUID in the list by bin?
Can you tell me the process you use to transfer bins? I tested this and the traceability stayed but if you could give me the exact process I can see if that is a bug. It is supposed to stay when you transfer bins.