cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Community Tip - Want the oppurtunity to discuss enhancements to PTC products? Join a working group! X

AVL without AML, is there any point (SUMA)?

avillanueva
22-Sapphire I

AVL without AML, is there any point (SUMA)?

I suspect that the sourcing column for Parts on things like BOMS and PartsLink only looks at the AML side.  Bummer, what if I have a pile of McMaster parts in my system?  I mean, technically, there is an OEM for all things but good luck finding that from McMaster Carr's catalog.  They have their own internal number on things and since the are only a distributor, it would not be technically correct to show them as a MFG just to get the source status field to show something other than "No AML". 

So, since cracking McMaster Carr's supply chain is not possible, what does the field recommend? Leave MFG blank or put in fake data to complete the link?

Other option is amending the sourcing status data utility to render AVL status in cases where its blank.

2 REPLIES 2

Popping this back up. Looking for suggestions. 

avillanueva_1-1670934922433.png

I currently have the AML/AVL above. I know McMaster to be a distributor so I think I was right to leave the manufacturer blank since who knows where their sources are. Not an issue since we only use them for less critical items like tooling.  The issue is that it breaks the sourcing status logic since it only displays the AML (see screen shot of BOM below)

Now, I know there are two camps, one that uses supplier parts numbers and those who have internal identifiers for everything they purchase. I do not think that is an issue here. It would only change what I call out on the BOM. What's missing here is who is the MFG of the McMaster screw they sourced. Since I am unlikely to ever know, would it make sense to just create McMaster-Carr as a Manufacturer also, create a manufacturer part of the same number to complete the AML/AVL? Or is the right choice to leave it blank so show accurately that this has no known MFG.

 

avillanueva_0-1670934880901.png

 

I don't have a solution, but just another view point. We basically implemented half of SUMA.. We don't use Vendor Parts at all. In our system, Manufacturer Parts are renamed to "Supplier Part". The distinction between Vendor and Manufacturer was too much for us to implement at the time. The only downside now is I think we're pretty baked in at this point. It would be a major under taking now to change it.

Top Tags