The material master is one of the most important master data of the ERP system. Why should it be maintained redundantly in an IoT platform at the manufacturing level?
Well, the material master may be rather the responsibility of the ERP system. However, to determine, for example, the overall process efficiency of a particular material, I must have at least a UUID for the material to which the evaluation refers.
It is only appropriate to assign a UUID to an entity if it can be ensured that
a) two different instances of the entity have different UUIDs
b) the same instance of the entity is not represented by different UUIDs in different contexts
At the manufacturing level, this is possible in a single plant, but not in the case of large industrial groups, which include different manufacturing plants around the world that may not even have the same ERP system. While it can be ruled out that two different materials have the same material number in a narrower ERP context (e.g. in the context of a particular production plant), it cannot be ruled out that one and the same material is not represented by different material numbers in a broader ERP context (e.g. in two different client systems of an ERP system or in two different ERP systems of the same corporation).
Both cannot be compared, because the material is a categorization of the individual articles produced, while the production order itself is an individual thing, which per se cannot exist twice in different production plants. If two production orders in different plants produce the same material, then they still produce other individual parts and they are still different production orders that have different key performance indicators, for example.
Alexander
The material master is one of the most important master data of the ERP system. Why should it be maintained redundantly in an IoT platform at the manufacturing level?
Well, the material master may be rather the responsibility of the ERP system. However, to determine, for example, the overall process efficiency of a particular material, I must have at least a UUID for the material to which the evaluation refers.
Alexander
It is only appropriate to assign a UUID to an entity if it can be ensured that
a) two different instances of the entity have different UUIDs
b) the same instance of the entity is not represented by different UUIDs in different contexts
At the manufacturing level, this is possible in a single plant, but not in the case of large industrial groups, which include different manufacturing plants around the world that may not even have the same ERP system. While it can be ruled out that two different materials have the same material number in a narrower ERP context (e.g. in the context of a particular production plant), it cannot be ruled out that one and the same material is not represented by different material numbers in a broader ERP context (e.g. in two different client systems of an ERP system or in two different ERP systems of the same corporation).
The same argumentation can also be used for production orders, for which, however, UUIDs exist in Bridge API.
Alexander
Both cannot be compared, because the material is a categorization of the individual articles produced, while the production order itself is an individual thing, which per se cannot exist twice in different production plants. If two production orders in different plants produce the same material, then they still produce other individual parts and they are still different production orders that have different key performance indicators, for example.