Keith
On 404b-405a the job qty yield recalc process definitely reduces job qty based upon reported OP losses.
It wouldn't make sense to have it increase to compensate as a multi-op job (like your cut bar example) might be 5 or 6 OPs into the job on CNC machines with hours long setups... You would never want to have to cut extra material, start from 1st OP again & incur re-setups!
Hopefully they haven't changed it in later version (and never will!)
Definitely test it on your 407 to assure yourself!
Just beware: It puts pressure on SUPER accurate labor reporting being required. If someone marks an OP complete (short) in End Activity (by accident - and with mosue driven systems that will happen) - the recurring process will do its thing and reduce your job qty.
We get a few a month where an operator accidently marks the wrong op complete - exiting the screen thinking the record wasn't written - and the recalc process reduces job qty to zilch... Fortunately, your floor operators can recognize something went wrong when the WIP job disappears from their dispatch - and can alert your scheduler to correct job qty after fixing their labor entry error.
That said, that is much less pain than wading through MANY more jobs than that each month that otherwise require intervention to complete & ultimately close.
Rob
________________________________
From: Keith <keithfwalter@...>
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 11:42:13 AM
Subject: [Vantage] Re: 8.03.407 - Setting Anticipated Scrap in a MOM
Â
Thanks for the insight, Rob. I guess it does make sence from the assembly example you gave.
I have been scared of the recalculate thing - I was told that this would automatically increase the Job's material demand (i.e. add aty's to the BOM) to account for any scrap. sounds like you are saying it is the oposite - that the Job qty reduces. "I will have to test this", as my consultant is fond of saying.
-Keith Walter
On 404b-405a the job qty yield recalc process definitely reduces job qty based upon reported OP losses.
It wouldn't make sense to have it increase to compensate as a multi-op job (like your cut bar example) might be 5 or 6 OPs into the job on CNC machines with hours long setups... You would never want to have to cut extra material, start from 1st OP again & incur re-setups!
Hopefully they haven't changed it in later version (and never will!)
Definitely test it on your 407 to assure yourself!
Just beware: It puts pressure on SUPER accurate labor reporting being required. If someone marks an OP complete (short) in End Activity (by accident - and with mosue driven systems that will happen) - the recurring process will do its thing and reduce your job qty.
We get a few a month where an operator accidently marks the wrong op complete - exiting the screen thinking the record wasn't written - and the recalc process reduces job qty to zilch... Fortunately, your floor operators can recognize something went wrong when the WIP job disappears from their dispatch - and can alert your scheduler to correct job qty after fixing their labor entry error.
That said, that is much less pain than wading through MANY more jobs than that each month that otherwise require intervention to complete & ultimately close.
Rob
________________________________
From: Keith <keithfwalter@...>
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 11:42:13 AM
Subject: [Vantage] Re: 8.03.407 - Setting Anticipated Scrap in a MOM
Â
Thanks for the insight, Rob. I guess it does make sence from the assembly example you gave.
I have been scared of the recalculate thing - I was told that this would automatically increase the Job's material demand (i.e. add aty's to the BOM) to account for any scrap. sounds like you are saying it is the oposite - that the Job qty reduces. "I will have to test this", as my consultant is fond of saying.
-Keith Walter
--- In vantage@yahoogroups .com, Robert Brown <robertb_versa@ ...> wrote:
>
> Welcome to Vantage Keith. Behavior you described is 'as designed' (ridiculously counterintuitive as it may seem).
>
> I've managed operations where this behavior might actually make sense. You're specificy op scrap - IE LABOR scrap - simply to cost account for a historically expected rework loop in, say, an assy OP - where no material losses are really incurred. (Just as easy to factor that into your cycle time without getting crazy about a labor scrap %.) Depending upon how you have things tied to G/L (and what cost method you use), it can impact financials. (Std cost parts would book a % labor scrap loss upon job receipt to whatever account you set up.)
>
> Sounds like you would be better off applying scrap rate on the material (and inflate you Min production qty used by MRP accordingly. )
>
> You also might want to consider setting up to utilize the Job Qty Yield recalc process so actual reported OP losses ratchet down job qty (remaining) expected accordingly. (Makes Job Completion must cleaner.)
>
> Rob Brown
>
>
>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ __
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]