Many thanks Pierre.

On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 10:41 AM Pierre Smits <pierresm...@apache.org>
wrote:

> Hi Emad, Groza, all,
>
> Given that we're nearing the end of month (and start of the new month) and
> we'll all be busy with activities related to that, I'll opt for August 29th
> and following time slot:
>
> *Slot / Zone* *GMT* *NLD* *EGY* *ROU*
> *Country*
> *Netherlands* *Egypt* *Romania*
> *Video Conference* 13:00 15:00 16:00 16:00
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The link for this is: https://calendar.app.google/8WNZAoAH8cor64ov9
>
> Please reply to all on this email (as I am currently blocked by the PMC
> from contributing to the project) to ensure everyone on this mailing list
> can see it. This will allow others who are interested to opt in and
> participate as well.
>
> Met vriendelijke groet,
>
> Pierre Smits
> *Proud* *contributor** of* Apache OFBiz <https://ofbiz.apache.org/> since
> 2008 (without privileges)
> Proud contributor to the ASF since 2006
> *Apache Directory <https://directory.apache.org>, PMC Member*
>
> Anyone could have been you, whereas I've always been anyone.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 1:04 PM Emad Radwan <eradwan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It looks like Egypt and Romania's time zone is the same - GMT+3 - which
>> is good. Thursday and Saturday time slots identified by Groza are fine
>> with
>> me.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Emad
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 1:45 PM Groza Danut <grozadanu...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Here are my time slots
>> >
>> > Romania local time:
>> > 29 Thu 15:00 to 20:00
>> > 30 Fri available from 17:00
>> > 31 Sat available from 14:00
>> > 01 Sun pretty much all day
>> > 03 Tue 07:00 to 11:00 or 15:00 to 18:00
>> > 04-06 available after 17:00
>> >
>> > GMT time:
>> > 29 Thu 12:00 to 17:00
>> > 30 Fri available from 14:00
>> > 31 Sat available from 11:00
>> > 01 Sun pretty much all day
>> > 03 Tue 04:00 to 08:00 or 12:00 to 15:00
>> > 04-06 available after 14:00
>> >
>> > Groza Danut
>> >
>> > On Tue, 27 Aug 2024, 13:04 Pierre Smits, <pierresm...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Please include your country, so we can factor in timezone corrections
>> (if
>> > > needed).
>> > >
>> > > Met vriendelijke groet,
>> > >
>> > > Pierre Smits
>> > > *Proud* *contributor** of* Apache OFBiz <https://ofbiz.apache.org/>
>> > since
>> > > 2008 (without privileges)
>> > > Proud contributor to the ASF since 2006
>> > > *Apache Directory <https://directory.apache.org>, PMC Member*
>> > >
>> > > Anyone could have been you, whereas I've always been anyone.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 11:55 AM Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com
>> >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Hi Emad, Groza, all,
>> > >>
>> > >> If you can provide me with a few date and time slots, I can schedule
>> > >> something that might be least inconvenient for all.
>> > >>
>> > >> Met vriendelijke groet,
>> > >>
>> > >> Pierre
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 10:14 AM Groza Danut <grozadanu...@gmail.com
>> >
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> Hi Pierre,
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I would also be interested in this. Do you think the brewery process
>> > >>> would
>> > >>> also apply to coffee shops, for the process manufacturing of
>> coffees?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Groza Danut
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On Tue, 27 Aug 2024, 11:02 Emad Radwan, <eradwan1...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> > That will be great. I'm in, anytime.
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > Regards,
>> > >>> > Emad
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 9:33 AM Pierre Smits <
>> pierresm...@apache.org
>> > >
>> > >>> > wrote:
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > > Hi Emad, All
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > > How about scheduling a 30-60 minutes video conference where I
>> give
>> > a
>> > >>> > > walk-through based on my BMS 4 Brewery solution?
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > > IMO, that would give the most bang-for-buck for you allowing
>> for an
>> > >>> > higher
>> > >>> > > interaction and addressing questions without having to wait
>> going
>> > >>> through
>> > >>> > > longer cycles.
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > > Met vriendelijke groet,
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > > Pierre Smits
>> > >>> > > *Proud* *contributor** of* Apache OFBiz <
>> https://ofbiz.apache.org/
>> > >
>> > >>> > since
>> > >>> > > 2008 (without privileges)
>> > >>> > > Proud contributor to the ASF since 2006
>> > >>> > > *Apache Directory <https://directory.apache.org>, PMC Member*
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > > Anyone could have been you, whereas I've always been anyone.
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 1:27 PM Emad Radwan <
>> eradwan1...@gmail.com
>> > >
>> > >>> > wrote:
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > >> Hello Pierre,
>> > >>> > >>
>> > >>> > >> Many thanks. I now understand the difference between WIP as a
>> > >>> product
>> > >>> > type
>> > >>> > >> and as an inventory and accounting concept. I also - correct
>> me if
>> > >>> I am
>> > >>> > >> wrong - understand that in 'ProductionRunDeclaration.groovy '
>> it
>> > >>> > requires
>> > >>> > >> product type NOT to be WIP in order to 'produce'.  However, and
>> > as I
>> > >>> > >> understand better from data and code, could you kindly share -
>> > from
>> > >>> your
>> > >>> > >> mentioned implementation - those records that explain the
>> > >>> relationship
>> > >>> > >> between the different production runs? data from ProductAssocs
>> and
>> > >>> > >> WorkEffortAssocs will give me a clearer understanding.
>> > >>> > >>
>> > >>> > >> Regards,
>> > >>> > >> Emad
>> > >>> > >>
>> > >>> > >> On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 10:39 AM Pierre Smits <
>> > >>> pierresm...@apache.org>
>> > >>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>> > >>
>> > >>> > >> > Hi Emad, all,
>> > >>> > >> >
>> > >>> > >> > First, for a better understanding of what a WIP product is
>> about
>> > >>> have
>> > >>> > a
>> > >>> > >> > look at:
>> > https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/workinprogress.asp
>> > >>> > >> >
>> > >>> > >> > A WIP product is in essence a a means to facilitate asset
>> value
>> > >>> > >> > calculation at the end of a reporting period (month, quarter,
>> > >>> year).
>> > >>> > >> >
>> > >>> > >> > So, it depends.... Not only on the complexity of the BOM and
>> > >>> schema
>> > >>> > >> steps,
>> > >>> > >> > but also on when the financial/fiscal reporting requirements
>> > (like
>> > >>> > e.g.
>> > >>> > >> > when the reporting year ends).
>> > >>> > >> >
>> > >>> > >> > If you have a production schema which has steps that can lead
>> > to a
>> > >>> > step
>> > >>> > >> in
>> > >>> > >> > a production run going from one day to the next, it can run
>> from
>> > >>> one
>> > >>> > >> > reporting period to the next (e.g. long duration steps in the
>> > >>> brewing
>> > >>> > >> > process, where fermentation/maturing can take multiple days,
>> or
>> > >>> even
>> > >>> > >> short
>> > >>> > >> > steps happening in evening/night shifts).
>> > >>> > >> > In such a case you can use the WIP classification as
>> production
>> > >>> type.
>> > >>> > >> But
>> > >>> > >> > I would say this adds additional accounting complexities in
>> your
>> > >>> > setup,
>> > >>> > >> > that need to be investigated and tested.
>> > >>> > >> >
>> > >>> > >> > in the first iteration of me implementing  OFBiz for
>> breweries (
>> > >>> see
>> > >>> > >> #1),
>> > >>> > >> > I started out with defining a single BOM and associated
>> > production
>> > >>> > >> schema
>> > >>> > >> > to get to the first finished product (beer), but that led to
>> a
>> > >>> unique
>> > >>> > >> > schema for each style/variant of beer. Which made production
>> > >>> planning
>> > >>> > >> (and
>> > >>> > >> > reporting) a nightmare. Breaking up such a production schema
>> > (and
>> > >>> its
>> > >>> > >> BOM)
>> > >>> > >> > into multiple (dependent/linked schemas) made life easier wrt
>> > >>> using
>> > >>> > >> OFBiz
>> > >>> > >> > regarding production planning and execution, registration of
>> > >>> inventory
>> > >>> > >> > movements and resource utilization, and reporting
>> (accounting)
>> > on
>> > >>> > asset
>> > >>> > >> > value and costs.
>> > >>> > >> >
>> > >>> > >> >
>> > >>> > >> > #1:
>> > >>> > >> >
>> > >>> > >>
>> > >>> >
>> > >>>
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Brewing+with+OFBiz+at+a+small+or+medium+sized+brewery
>> > >>> > >> >
>> > >>> > >> > I trust the above helps you in finding the optimal solution
>> for
>> > >>> your
>> > >>> > >> > 'unique' business case/scenario. Should you have additional
>> > >>> questions
>> > >>> > >> > and/or remarks, feel free to reach out.
>> > >>> > >> >
>> > >>> > >> > Met vriendelijke groet,
>> > >>> > >> >
>> > >>> > >> > Pierre Smits
>> > >>> > >> > *Proud* *contributor** of* Apache OFBiz <
>> > >>> https://ofbiz.apache.org/>
>> > >>> > >> since
>> > >>> > >> > 2008 (without privileges)
>> > >>> > >> > Proud contributor to the ASF since 2006
>> > >>> > >> > *Apache Directory <https://directory.apache.org>, PMC
>> Member*
>> > >>> > >> >
>> > >>> > >> > Anyone could have been you, whereas I've always been anyone.
>> > >>> > >> >
>> > >>> > >> >
>> > >>> > >> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 10:31 AM Emad Radwan <
>> > >>> eradwan1...@gmail.com>
>> > >>> > >> > wrote:
>> > >>> > >> >
>> > >>> > >> >> Hello Pierre,
>> > >>> > >> >>
>> > >>> > >> >> Few clarifications, please. First, for the new products that
>> > >>> we'll
>> > >>> > >> create
>> > >>> > >> >> - using your explanation above - is it correct to say that
>> > >>> they'll be
>> > >>> > >> >> 'intermediate' products with 'WIP' product type?
>> > >>> > >> >>
>> > >>> > >> >> Second, Can we have the the whole process - while having the
>> > >>> > >> possibility
>> > >>> > >> >> to declare intermediate products - in a single production
>> run
>> > or
>> > >>> it
>> > >>> > >> >> requires 'child' production runs?
>> > >>> > >> >>
>> > >>> > >> >> If the process above can fit in one production run, then
>> what
>> > >>> > >> >> configuration is required to make this happen?
>> > >>> > >> >>
>> > >>> > >> >> Regards,
>> > >>> > >> >> Emad
>> > >>> > >> >>
>> > >>> > >> >> On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 2:02 PM Emad Radwan <
>> > >>> eradwan1...@gmail.com>
>> > >>> > >> >> wrote:
>> > >>> > >> >>
>> > >>> > >> >>> Hello Pierre,
>> > >>> > >> >>>
>> > >>> > >> >>> Many thanks for the detailed explanation. I have a number
>> of
>> > >>> > >> >>> follow-up questions that I'll get back to you on in the
>> next
>> > few
>> > >>> > days
>> > >>> > >> as I
>> > >>> > >> >>> review the relevant code to make sure I'm asking the right
>> > >>> > questions.
>> > >>> > >> >>>
>> > >>> > >> >>> Regards,
>> > >>> > >> >>> Emad
>> > >>> > >> >>>
>> > >>> > >> >>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 1:36 PM Pierre Smits <
>> > >>> > pierre.sm...@gmail.com>
>> > >>> > >> >>> wrote:
>> > >>> > >> >>>
>> > >>> > >> >>>> Hi Emad,
>> > >>> > >> >>>>
>> > >>> > >> >>>> A production run to produce Asprin sounds like a
>> > >>> process-oriented
>> > >>> > >> >>>> manufacturing method (similar to producing 'scrambled
>> eggs'
>> > you
>> > >>> > >> can't unmix
>> > >>> > >> >>>> the Asprin mixture).
>> > >>> > >> >>>>
>> > >>> > >> >>>> If you have a requirement for 100.000 tablets, I would
>> break
>> > it
>> > >>> > down
>> > >>> > >> to
>> > >>> > >> >>>> multiple production schemas to keep it simple: 1 for
>> > producing
>> > >>> the
>> > >>> > >> mixture,
>> > >>> > >> >>>> 1 for producing the tablets from the mixture, and 1 for
>> > >>> packaging
>> > >>> > the
>> > >>> > >> >>>> tablets. The reason for this is to factoring the waste
>> > aspects
>> > >>> for
>> > >>> > >> the
>> > >>> > >> >>>> production runs, but also to have intermediate inventory
>> > >>> > >> registration:
>> > >>> > >> >>>>
>> > >>> > >> >>>>
>> > >>> > >> >>>>    1. in the mixture process, residue could remain in the
>> > >>> mixing
>> > >>> > and
>> > >>> > >> >>>>    transport equipment leading to 100% (of the weight) of
>> > >>> > >> ingredients going in
>> > >>> > >> >>>>    results in  > 100% of output. E.g. 100 kg of
>> ingredients >
>> > >>> 98 kg
>> > >>> > >> of mixture
>> > >>> > >> >>>>    2. in the tablet production process, again 100% of the
>> > >>> mixture
>> > >>> > of
>> > >>> > >> 1
>> > >>> > >> >>>>    (98 kg) could lead to > 100% of output.
>> > >>> > >> >>>>    3. in the packaging process, the tablets registered in
>> 2
>> > may
>> > >>> > lead
>> > >>> > >> >>>>    to the last container (box, bag, etc.) not having the
>> > >>> correct
>> > >>> > >> quantity.
>> > >>> > >> >>>>
>> > >>> > >> >>>> Thus process 1 (schema 1) should have a weight step at the
>> > end,
>> > >>> > which
>> > >>> > >> >>>> could account for the actual going into an intermediate
>> > >>> inventory
>> > >>> > >> product
>> > >>> > >> >>>> And process (schema2) should have a 'tablet' counter at
>> the
>> > >>> end to
>> > >>> > >> >>>> determine the 'actual' quantity of produced tablets that
>> goes
>> > >>> into
>> > >>> > >> >>>> inventory.
>> > >>> > >> >>>>
>> > >>> > >> >>>> Also, given that you're talking about a food related
>> product,
>> > >>> > >> batch/lot
>> > >>> > >> >>>> registration is essential. Mixing different batches/lots
>> from
>> > >>> > >> production
>> > >>> > >> >>>> run 1 and 2 to get to the required output (100.000
>> tablets)
>> > >>> would
>> > >>> > >> introduce
>> > >>> > >> >>>> unmanageable risks.
>> > >>> > >> >>>>
>> > >>> > >> >>>> Now, coming back to your ask about the 'Declare'  on a
>> task,
>> > >>> this
>> > >>> > >> would
>> > >>> > >> >>>> do something similar within a production run. In a
>> production
>> > >>> run
>> > >>> > >> task you
>> > >>> > >> >>>> can 'declare' the output of a task (e.g. the mixture),
>> which
>> > is
>> > >>> > then
>> > >>> > >> the
>> > >>> > >> >>>> starting point of the next task (but I have found it to be
>> > more
>> > >>> > >> difficult
>> > >>> > >> >>>> to explain regarding waste, by-products and batch/lot
>> > >>> registration,
>> > >>> > >> when I
>> > >>> > >> >>>> introduced OFBiz as a Brewery Management Solution at
>> several
>> > >>> > >> breweries).
>> > >>> > >> >>>>
>> > >>> > >> >>>> I trust the above helps.
>> > >>> > >> >>>>
>> > >>> > >> >>>>
>> > >>> > >> >>>> Met vriendelijke groet,
>> > >>> > >> >>>>
>> > >>> > >> >>>> Pierre
>> > >>> > >> >>>>
>> > >>> > >> >>>>
>> > >>> > >> >>>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 8:33 PM Emad Radwan <
>> > >>> eradwan1...@gmail.com
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > >> >>>> wrote:
>> > >>> > >> >>>>
>> > >>> > >> >>>>> Hello Community,
>> > >>> > >> >>>>>
>> > >>> > >> >>>>> Assume I have a routing for Asprin - a batch of 100000
>> > >>> tablets -
>> > >>> > >> >>>>> manufacturing where there're 7 tasks to make the product.
>> > >>> Lets say
>> > >>> > >> >>>>> that in
>> > >>> > >> >>>>> the first 5 tasks we didn't reach the 'tablet' form yet.
>> My
>> > >>> > question
>> > >>> > >> >>>>> is,
>> > >>> > >> >>>>> why the 'Declare' button for one of those tasks is
>> > available?
>> > >>> > >> >>>>>
>> > >>> > >> >>>>> By pressing 'declare' we have a form to edit the task
>> where
>> > >>> some
>> > >>> > >> >>>>> fields I
>> > >>> > >> >>>>> understand like actual timings but I don't get fields
>> like
>> > >>> > >> >>>>> QuantityProduced
>> > >>> > >> >>>>> for such tasks where we don't have a 'finished product'
>> yet.
>> > >>> > >> >>>>>
>> > >>> > >> >>>>> Also appear another form - in the - Production Run
>> > Declaration
>> > >>> > >> section
>> > >>> > >> >>>>> -
>> > >>> > >> >>>>> that allow to add an inventory item for 'any' product the
>> > user
>> > >>> > >> selects!
>> > >>> > >> >>>>>
>> > >>> > >> >>>>> Do you find it logical to have the above visible for such
>> > >>> middle
>> > >>> > >> >>>>> tasks? Is
>> > >>> > >> >>>>> there a way to configure it to display with tasks that
>> will
>> > >>> > actually
>> > >>> > >> >>>>> deliver the finished product?
>> > >>> > >> >>>>>
>> > >>> > >> >>>>> Are the uses cases for this that I'm missing?
>> > >>> > >> >>>>>
>> > >>> > >> >>>>> Regards,
>> > >>> > >> >>>>> Emad
>> > >>> > >> >>>>>
>> > >>> > >> >>>>
>> > >>> > >>
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> >
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> >
>>
>

Reply via email to