Maximo Open Forum

 View Only

  • 1.  Checkbox should be editable for existing rows in MATUSETRANS

    Posted 13 days ago

    Hi everyone,

    I'm trying to make a custom checkbox field (WAREAPPR - that is an approval from the Warehouse user that the materials declared by the labor have the correct ITEMNUM and DESCRIPTION) editable in the Materials tab (MATUSETRANS) of the Work Order Tracking application.

    Here's what I've done so far:
    • Created a persistent YORN attribute WAREAPPR on MATUSETRANS
    • Added the field as a checkbox in the Actuals > Materials tab in WOTRACK
    • Added a conditional UI rule that sets inputmode = editable only for users in group MXOSWAREH
    • Also the checkbox does not appear for the other users

    It works only for new rows, but I need warehouse users to be able to edit the checkbox for existing rows.


    Is there a specific setting or property I'm missing to make existing rows editable inside a table control?

    Thanks in advance!


    #Administration
    #Inventory
    #MaximoApplicationSuite

    ------------------------------
    Raziela Avdylaj
    InfoSoft Business Solutions
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Checkbox should be editable for existing rows in MATUSETRANS

    Posted 13 days ago

    MATUSETRANS is an object that by design is not intended to be modified after it is saved. In the initialize event of the MatUseTrans class it sets the entire object read-only if the record is not being added. 

    Making changes to a record that is never intended to ever be modified can lead to serious issues. As an example, when the new asset rollup process was introduced, it updated the records to set the rollup flag using Mbos rather than SQL as the report had done. SERVRECTRANS like MATUSETRANS were never intended to be modified and there was logic when the SERVRECTRANS record was saved to create an invoice if the vendor had a pay on receipt flag enabled. This led to duplicate invoices being created for a single receipt.

    While SERVRECTRANS is not the same object, I wanted to use it as an example of how triggering additional saves on an object that is never modified after it has been saved can lead to issues. And that's ignoring other concepts the customer might have implemented around automation scripts, integrations, etc. 

    I would recommend instead of trying to modify the MATUSETRANS record that you store it in a new custom object. 



    ------------------------------
    Steven Shull
    Naviam
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 3.  RE: Checkbox should be editable for existing rows in MATUSETRANS

    Posted 10 days ago

    Hi Steven,

    Thank you very much for the detailed explanation - I truly appreciate the insight and the example you shared. It absolutely makes sense now why modifying records like MATUSETRANS after they're saved is risky and not supported by design. 

    That said, I'd like to ask for your opinion on the approach of storing the warehouse approval checkbox in the WPITEM object instead, during the planning phase. Since WPITEM is used before execution, would it be acceptable to track the warehouse's confirmation there - i.e., that ITEMNUM and DESCRIPTION look correct before moving forward?

    Also, we have a second related requirement from the warehouse team.
    When materials are issued with the transaction type = RETURN, the warehouse user needs to confirm whether the item was physically returned to the storeroom. This approval happens at the very end of the process, once the return is logged.

    In this case, the only logical place to capture this would be in MATUSETRANS, since the transaction has already occurred. Would your recommendation still be to avoid updating MATUSETRANS in this case too? If so, should we again handle this via a custom object linked to the MATUSETRANS record?

    Thanks again for the help!



    ------------------------------
    Raziela Avdylaj
    InfoSoft Business Solutions
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 4.  RE: Checkbox should be editable for existing rows in MATUSETRANS

    Posted 10 days ago

    WPITEM can be modified after save so I wouldn't be worried about adding custom attributes to that object. Just be aware that Maximo has a concept called Edit Rules that determine which WO statuses it can be edited. Out of box, you can't modify plans after the WO gets out of WAPPR for example. Though this is configurable.

    For the return scenario, while MATUSETRANS would be a logical place to store it in an application that you had full control over, you don't with Maximo. You need to make your custom process fit within the rules of the Maximo framework for long term success. So yes, for now I would create it as a separate object or have the MATUSETRANS return created by the storeroom clerk when they receive the material (IE so you know that every RETURN has been accepted).

    The return scenario going through a receiving process would be a good enhancement to the core product. I would recommend having the customer post it on the Ideas portal to try and get it out of the box: IBM Sustainability Software - Ideas Portal



    ------------------------------
    Steven Shull
    Naviam
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 5.  RE: Checkbox should be editable for existing rows in MATUSETRANS

    Posted 9 days ago
    Edited by Biplab Choudhury 9 days ago

    Read the whole discussion.

    I agree with Steven on all the solutions and idea about creating a receipt for internal return to storeroom.

    I also think that this is a classic case of an issue which should first be tried to resolve by improving business process and implementing a functional solution.

    There 2 issues identified here:

    1. Items planned and actuals are not correct and thus requires someone from warehouse or inventory team to validate.
    2. Items are returned in the system but there is no validation that physical return was completed.

    Here is my approach and 2 cents on the 2 issues:

    1. Adding correct items to a work order and validating the item in plan phase is not warehouse controller remit. It is the job of planner or maintenance supervisor to add correct items to the work orders. You can approach this by solutions below:
      • Implement job plan material which is created with appropriate materials and it ensures human error is avoided in a day to day operations. Most of the work order are PM and thus incorrect material in the planning stage can be avoided there.
      • Implement Maximo Workflow which enforces maintenance supervisors to validate work order planning before approving work order.
      •  Most important a business process need to be defined on the work order planning and execution which has to be followed by maintenance plannning and execution teams.
      • Incorrect Items added directly in the actuals can be resolved by enforcing maintenance supervisors to validate items added before finalising work orders from their queue. Again a business process and a maximo functional solution.
    2. Items return validation is a tricky problem to solve. This partially comes under warehouse controller's remit as they are liable to missing items in the storeroom and write-off due to missing parts. Couple of solutions that come to mind without understanding your organisation's processes
      • Technical solution would be to add inventory or warehouse controller to a work order workflow to validate if return transactions created in a work order are valid. 
      • I think a proper solution to this problem is using Inventory Usage application for returns. It goes through a change flow so it will be easy to implement and warehouse controller can move a usage to complete as a validation step. It will also add additional responsibility on the planning and execution teams as they know there are additional step required to return an item.

    Hope this helps!

    Cheers



    ------------------------------
    Biplab Choudhury
    Valueztech
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 6.  RE: Checkbox should be editable for existing rows in MATUSETRANS

    Posted 9 days ago

    Hi Raziela,

    I agree with both replies; however, I'd like to dive deeper into the why and what?

    Material planning

    You mentioned that the "warehouse checks both the item number and the description to ensure they are correct".  Correct for what, and how does the warehouse know what is correct for the maintenance department?

    Items

    Let's have a quick look at the items.  These come from a master item (catalogue).  Meaning that the warehouse (though not always) has put the item into the system as items that can either be used for purchase or maintenance.  Either way, there should be a formal process to request the addition of a new item to the catalogue.

    WP Material - Line Type = ITEM

    The item number is usually system-defined, i.e. auto-numbered, and therefore the maintenance user/planner cannot change this, so warehouse cannot be checking for that.

    The description is either generated by the system from the item specification or by the user who added the item to the system.  The description, of course, within the Item Master application, can be changed at any time by people with suitable edit access, which could be the warehouse.  The item description cannot be edited on the work order, so warehouse can't be checking for that.

    WP Material - Line Type = MATERIAL

    There is no item number, so the warehouse cannot be checking for that.

    The description is free text, so the user can enter whatever description they like within the bounds of the field length.  These are direct issues, so they will end up on a PR/PO at which time someone needs to review and approve.  Not normally a warehouse role, but could be as there may be an existing item held within the inventory that should have been used, that is another whole discussion on how Maximo does not try to match a material to an item.  However, the reorder can only occur a) once the work order is approved, and b) the reorder is run for direct issued items.

    ---------------------------------------------------

    Let's walk one further and ignore above and go with your requirement, that there is an approval from the Warehouse user that the materials declared by the labor have the correct ITEMNUM and DESCRIPTION.

    • What are the consequences of not having this checkbox enabled?
      • Is the work order blocked from being able to be approved?
    • Does it apply to all rows in the WP Material?
      • Is there a difference between an ITEM and MATERIAL line type.
    • How does warehouse know that there is WP Material lines that need there review.
    • What if warehouse does not give an approval...how do they do this as there are only two states the checkbox can be in?
    • Is there a mix up between what the planner or supervisor should be doing vs the warehouse?

    ------------------------------------------------------

    What else have I ignored?

    Special order parts (SP) of course.  It's a rare thing, but these can still be created.  For that don't know what SP items are, they are an item that can be created directly on a work order into a store with an item number and description.  Typically, these are project-based items that where you may/may not have created a storeroom/bin to collect all the new items ordered as part of a project.  At the end of the project, these items are either disposed of and made obsolete, or transferred to a "real" storeroom, or left as-is.  It would make sense that these do need checking to make sure that they do meet some standards, however, then item number is usually auto-generated.

    -------------------------------

    Biplap mentioned "improving business process and implementing a functional solution".  This is where I'm coming from.  Whilst there are potential solutions given, you first of all need to understand the business context and process.  We don't have an understanding of your context and process to know if the solution is fit for purpose.

    ------------------------------

    Returns

    Yes, this can be contentious area as outright there is no method in Maximo to validate that the maintainer has in fact return the item physically to the store.  This is why you do stocktaking.

    The maintainer can easily say they have returned an item without a second person verification.  By the way, all of what I'm going to say is premised on the fact that the maintainer does actually return the item to the store, otherwise, there are no other checks that they were issue 10 and used 10.

    There are many applications where you can return an item.  Some enforce that you can only return what was issued, and others don't care...these are the scary ones.

    So, what are some options?

    1. Have a controlled store.  The storeperson does the return.  For this to work, you could look at hiding the return option, so they 'must' hand it back via the storeperson.
    2. On receipt of a returned item, use an escalation to notify the storeperson who can the perform a mini-stocktake on that bin. The question here is "which was the issued item that came back?"
    3. On receipt of a returned item, use an escalation to start a workflow process which involves the storeperson who can the perform a mini-stocktake on that bin. The question here is "which was the issued item that came back?
    4. Do more frequent stocktaking, especially on the high turnover items.
    5. Do a report that looks at COMP or CLOSE (probably closed) work orders and looks at the number of items requested (in a well planned world) vs the amount issued.

    I do like having a flag that indicates the return has been validated.  I would encourage this be raised as an !Idea.

    Biplap suggested the use of the Inventory Usage application for returns as this is very easy to do a Workflow around.  With this application, the act of completing the usage document is validation and that could only be done by someone in the warehouse.



    ------------------------------
    Craig Kokay
    Principal Consultant
    COSOL

    email: craig.kokay@cosol.global
    #IBMChampion
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 7.  RE: Checkbox should be editable for existing rows in MATUSETRANS

    Posted 6 days ago

    Reading the suggestions and solutions from our experts got me keen on giving my 5 cents to your requirement.

    Giving your business a minor twist to allow using Inventory Usage for every work order approved would help fit your requirement. The Organization application allows you to create an Inventory Usage for every approved work order and this will allow you to deviate the inventory usage record to the warehouse supervisor to change status to WAREAPPR (maybe a synonym of COMPLETE) that is given to warehouse after which the inventory usage is recorded to material usage transaction.



    ------------------------------
    Niv Geo
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


Related Content