Class-200 Vs Phantom BOM in Variant configuration

[Former Member]

Hi All,

We have a situation at client site where we need to choose between the Class-200 type or Phantom assembly. Currently, we use the class-200 type. But since there are drawbacks in Class-200 type, we started to work with Phantom assemblies in the place of Class-200 type.

I have created the scenario (where one of the Part is being selected in CU50 from the Phantom assembly) successfully with Phantom assembly. But want to know the impact of using the Phantom assembly over Class-200 (Like the troubles in MRP run or Costing etc)....

Can anyone help me with the suggestions?

~ Guru

[Former Member]

Dear Experts

i face same trouble , is it solved here ?

[Ritz]

Guru Prasad,

You issue is not cleaer, can you please elobrote how class 200 is comparable with Phantom ?

Thanks

Ritesh

[Former Member]

Hi Ritesh,

Let me elaborate the case...

Consider a BOM (KMAT type) having the components C1 & C2. The requirement is to have either C1 or C2 in the MRP run. So, we are currently creating a Class-200 to the super BOM. We assign the Class 200 to the Classification view of C1 & C2. so, in the MRP run, we either get C1 or C2 depending on the OD (constraint at configuration profile level). This is working fine...

So, we now wants to know whether we can replace the class-200 type with the Phantom assembly? Say, in the above case, I will create a phantom assembly with C1 & C2. The Phantom assembly will be part of the Super BOM. And so, in the MRP run, either C1 or C2 gets selected according to the OD (assigned to the Phantom components).

I have exercised the use case with Phantom assembly & got successful. I just want to know the impact of using Phantom assembly over Class-200 type...

~ Guru

[Ritz]

Thanks Guru, now its clear.

my new question is , why not put C1 & C2 in super BOM directly and create a selection condition to pick one of it based upon value selected by user.

I really don't understand why you need a phantom for this 2 items?

Reply.

Thanks

Ritesh