Work orders cannot be made for parts without BOMs

[dalers]

See discussion #791

It would be convenient for some companies (specifically @bmay598's company) to continue to offer the ability to create a work order without having to create a BOM first (and assign the material when the work order is closed). This allows the worker performing the production to pick the material from what is available without the production manager needing to know the material at the time the work order is created.

Per @pakricard, the BOM requirement was added to WorkOrderEntry.php in Sept 2024 with commit 049c1f7.

The proposed solution is to add a config config variable to menu item [Setup > General > Company Preferences]) which would cause the BOM constraint to be waived when set appropriately.

If everyone agrees this is an issue and with the proposed resolution, I will assign this issue to myself.

[timschofield]

This can/will cause problems when a work order is closed. At that point, amongst other things, webERP posts a value to the GL for the usage variance - ie the difference between the expected cost as per the BOM and the actual cost as per the issues. If there is no BOM I'm not sure the WO could be closed (I haven't tried it) and if it does allow it, it will post a huge usage variance which may distort the accounts.
You could semi get around this by having the same GL code for both stock usage, and usage variance. You would lose the ability to report on usage variance, and the stock usage figure would be posted with a variance narrative.

Tim

[dalers]

Thanks for your insight @timschofield ! :-)

@bmay598 Assume the machinist has just handed you back the printed work order you gave him, but he has written on it what material was actually used (I'm guessing this is your workflow). What are the steps you now go through to close the work order? If I understand correctly, the reporting issues @timschofield described also apply to 4.15, why are they not issues for you?

I also have not tried any of this myself but the concepts seem clear as the layers of the onion are peeled back...

From The Manual:

It has been possible to build bills of material for manufactured items for some time but the functionality
that allows the materials to be issued from stock and manufactured items received into stock was
introduced with 3.06. This is the purpose of the work order.

Functionality to add labour items to work orders and post recovery amounts to a profit and loss account
for issues of labour to a work order was added after 3.09 (Sept 2008).

Functionality to set up a master production schedule and explode bills of materials into the components
required to manufacture this demand and calculate the required orders to be placed/rescheduled (MRP)
was added by Mark Yeager in March 2009.

4.15 was released Dec. 2021, so I presume the constraint was added later (Sept 2024 per @pakricard commit 049c1f7) to thow an error if the user had neglected to create a BOM, which then would imply the issues you mentioned @timschofield are not issues for @bmay598.

[bmay598]

Currently, the machinist will write the material he used. I then issue the material to the work order.

I have not noticed the variance issue because I mainly use weberp for inventory tracking, bill of materials, purchase orders.... Mainly the stock side of things. We do not use the accounting side of things - I was unable to convince the upper management to move away from their accounting system when we started using weberp.

[dalers]

@bmay598:

mainly use weberp for inventory tracking, bill of materials, purchase orders.... Mainly the stock side of things. We do not use the accounting side of things

Interesting, this is my motivation also for startup enterprises. It has been my experience a startup founder will have their own financial system (e.g. QuickBooks online), but if the startup is making physical product of any consequence they absolutely will need a system like webERP to manage design and manufacturing. Once webERP has proven itself perhaps the company will switch to using webERP only (or not).

Back in the day, a "hybrid" system was not uncommon (one system for corporate financials and another for manufacturing including items, BOMs, stock control, work instructions, MRP and possibly purchasing - due to its relationship with MRP). Periodically aggregated financials would be pushed from the manufacturing system into the financial system depending on reporting requirements (daily, monthly, quarterly or annually).

@timschofield it seems @bmay598 can accept that financial reports will not have useful information but with the system configured per your suggestions (same GL code for stock usage and usage variance), the reports will be correct except that reporting on usage variance is not possible. To me, this seems the best of both worlds and the "biggest" change would be to explain in The Manual that webERP can be used a hybrid environment. What do you think?

[timschofield]

I'm happy to change it on the proviso that the default behaviour stays as it currently is.

Thanks
Tim

[pakricard]

Interesting, this is my motivation also for startup enterprises. It has been my experience a startup founder will have their own financial system (e.g. QuickBooks online), but if the startup is making physical product of any consequence they absolutely will need a system like webERP to manage design and manufacturing. Once webERP has proven itself perhaps the company will switch to using webERP only (or not).

Having everything under one roof (ERP) makes such a difference long time, that I can't imagine any other scenario. Data has to be inputted just once, no inconsistencies, etc... If I had to start a business again, I would spend a long time selecting the right ERP for the business, but never I would have the information scattered around several software systems.

But... maybe I'm just an IT geek fanatic of consistency and simplicity ;-)

R

[pakricard]

I'm happy to change it on the proviso that the default behaviour stays as it currently is.

Entirely agree. Allowing WO without BOM should be an exception, and not the way forward for webERP.

R

[dalers]

Having everything under one roof (ERP) makes such a difference long time, that I can't imagine any other scenario.

I don't disagree, but not everyone has this luxury as proven by @bmay598 and my own experience working with startups. BIG enterprises often have hybrid systems (e.g. seperate ERP and MES systems), showing the concept has value in certain situations. However, I agree not requiring a BOM should be the exception.

My understanding is that it would be acceptable to add a config variable to allow WorkOrderEntry.php to create a WO without the manufactured item having a BOM, the same as it did in v4.15. The default value of the config variable will be to require a BOM (i.e. the current behavior), and the user will have to change the value if they want v4.15 behavior (BOM not required).

I'm going to assign this issue to myself to create a PR following this behavior (but it may be a week or three... )

[dalers]

Do you agree with this proposed [Setup > General > System Parameters] page with added "Allow Work Orders without a BOM"?

I took the opportunity to also refactor the groups on the page for clarity. There are currently two "General Settings" groups, there are variables in the 2nd "General Settings" group that would be more appropriate in the "Accounts Receivable/Payable Settings" group and there are variables in the "Accounts Receivable/Payable Settings" group that are either not accounting related or are accounting related but not directly related to AR/AP. The refactored groups are in alphabetical order for clarity (Accounting, Date and Time, E-Mail, Exchange Rates...) (I tried a more functional order but it got messy and simple alphabetical order was the best solution)

If you don't agree, I will insert "Allow Work Orders without a BOM" in the 2nd "General Settings" group after "Auto Create Work Orders".

[dalers]

P.S. for comparison, here's the current page (before adding "Allow Work Order Without BOM").

[pakricard]

Seems a good idea to me. Moreover, the reorganization of this page looks much better.
Thanks @dalers

[dalers]

Thanks @pakricard, I will assume @timschofield is going to agree with youand will submit the refactored the System Parameters page in the PR (probably early next week).

Fwiw, I still don't understand the distinction between [Setup > General > System Parameters] and [Setup > General > Company Preferences] but thought it best to not to increase the scope of this issue further.

[timschofield]

It all looks good to me Dale