When merging parts, the merged part info should be transfered automatically to the part number using the merged part vendor and part number information. We are doing this manually for the moment.
I have suggested part supersession a few times. Would make merging / combining numbers so much easier and would love to retain the history also.
So I think supersession and parts merging are two different things. Parts merging would be to make a single record out of two parts, eg I added a battery named 31P, then later on, someone else added a part 31-P. They are the same part, and I have history on both. Merging makes one record out of two (and three and four, etc). It’s very useful for data cleanup, and in some ways can help with supersession, though you wouldn’t need to use it that way (you could after all just renumber the old part # to the new part # and achieve the same result).
Supersession, I would venture to say that you want to keep the old history tied to the original part #, keep the original part #, but then link it to the new part, so that you wouldn’t use that superseded # anymore. There’s probably more to it as well, but I think it definitely warrants a closer look, and a separate feedback item. I added one here: Parts Supersession Enhancement
Ok, supersession and parts merging can indeed be one in the same. And yes, saving and combining the “history” is the goal. You are correct, the number 1 reason I’d like to be able to ‘merge/supersede’ parts is to combine sometimes decades worth of info to one part number without loosing the history. In my facility alone, there has been at least 5 different people adding to RTA over the past 15ish years. One person may have purchased from one vendor and part number and the next person purchased from a different vendor and part number. History on both and combining them would be ideal.
There are also times when vendors will originally have 2 part numbers and then they will supersede both numbers to one of the two. I end up making lots of notes on both part numbers if I don’t want to delete and loose the history on the one that the vendor stopped using.
Thanks again for considering this topic.
So I think we are saying the same thing from the part perspective.
What a merge does behind the scenes is that renumber process. So if I posted 31P and 31-P to a work order last year, when I merge them into 31P, all 31-P would be changed to show the new number. In the case of supersedence, that part # may not have existed at that time and some vendors have an issue with that during the warranty process. So while the merge does combine the history under one part, it also loses some of that original data because of how merging works.
Supersedence though would leave the original data in tact, but we’d add a way to roll up the chain of part #s so to speak so that when you look at history or usage, we should be able to reflect all the parts that are related to each other.
People use merging for supersedence because it’s the best option currently, and it meets 80-90% of what is needed for truly tracking superseded parts.