I was under the impression that it would automatically add a suffix to the bin when you put a part in a bin that already has products there.
I have set it to 1 but I am still getting that annoying question:
Is there some other setting i need to activate or how do I get it to just add a suffix and put it there?
Hi @sisyfos, I know that I have not used that config setting, and Cetec does exactly as you describe. Take for example this bin data for a specific part record:
This screenshot only captures -8 through -19, but I have 20 parts in the same bin starting with the original bin name, bin name with -1, -2, -3, all the way to -19.
If you “Create New” when prompted is when it would add the suffix number. If your question is to ask how to bypass the question to create new or specify different, I’d like to know if that is possible as well. @cetecerp
Yes that is exactly what I want. I do not want to answer the question if I want to create new or specify diffrent. I just want it to silently add a suffix to the bin name and put it there.
Seeing as I did not have that option activated before and Cetec did already add a suffix automatically to the suggested bin name e.g IN PRODUCTION-1.
I thought that if I activated that, then it would just silently add the new BIN with suffix and I would not have to answer that pesky question.
@cetecerp26
Should the setting perhaps have another value?
Should I put some sort of suffix here instead?
Perhaps something like Use Suffix For Duplicate Put Away = xyz+[incremented value]
Please advise.
//H
Any chance we can have someone answering this?
@cetecerp13 @cetecerp21 @cetecerp23 @cetecerp16 @cetecerp2 @cetecerp29
Can you please answer this?
//H
Hi Henrik,
As far as I can tell the question will always be asked as long the bin entered already exists, there is no config currently that will default the response to automatically add the next available suffix. If you like I can propose your suggestion to out team as a configuration to be added in a future release?
Thanks!
Hi,that would be much appreciated.
Can you also ask if it is something that I could have custom built?
if it is something that can be custom built I would also like a quote for that.
//H
I have passed your request along… when we have the quote we’ll follow up with you directly.
@cetecerp2
Any news?
//H
Hello @cetecerp2, even if @sisyfos does not move forward with paying for the custom development, I think this is a great feature that all Cetec users should have via config setting to do a “silent bin suffix” or something because it would eliminate a lot of clicking for my inventory.
Please put this into consideration for the next release as it would increase our efficiency,
Our Engineering team reviewed the request and they decided not to move forward currently. We’ve marked it for further review on either the next release or the one after that.
Thanks!
@cetecerp2
So that means I can’t get a quote for it either?
It is such a efficiency killer!
A process that could be totally without interaction with the screen(well apart from glancing at it now and then) now involves multiple clicks.
I urge the engineering team to reconsider.
Regards
//H
Can you clarify if I will be able to get a quote or not?
//H
Hi Henrik,
I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. Unfortunately the engineering team is fully booked on changes currently and decided not to even provide a quote. As I said for the next release or the one after that they will look at adding this one but no guarantees there.
Thanks for your patience!
The suffixes to bins is going to be a big issue for us too - new customer. We like so many things about Cetec, but this is one HUGE efficiency killer issue. Creating new bins for every receipt also makes managing inventory, cycle counts etc, very cumbersome.
We are quickly going to be up in the hundreds and thousands on our bin suffixes.
Question - why is this done this way? If you use the bin AND the receipt number as the primary index on the table, you would not need to have new bins created for every receipt.
Thanks @dcrowell for chiming in.
I fully agree on the “so many things we like about Cetec”
But for a lot of the staff there are tasks that are really cumbersome.
I do not know the technical reason behind this design but I am a firm beliver that there is not one company out there that likes current functionality, and I too would have thought that bin and reciept number would work as primary index on the table.
How ever that might break the design pattern somwhere else so it might not be that easy.
I am eagerly awaiting this answer.
//H
That is along the same lines as the mystery of why PRC and part need to be in one field. MySql allows for multiple fields to be used as the primary index for uniqueness. They could have PRC and part as 2 separate fields.
PRCPart… don’t get me started.
It seems that it started as a good idea and when CETEC realized that it was causing headaches, it was too late to refactor the ERP.
@cetecerp2
Is anyone from Cetec going to chime in on this topic?
//H
