I found some older posts with this topic, but didn’t find a solution that will work for us. Crew size is a factor for labor hours and estimated labor costs only; it is not a factor for estimated burden costs. Both labor and burden actual costs are calculated using actual labor hours. On an operation with a crew size of 4, even if estimated and actual hours are equal, the actual burden cost is four times higher than estimated. Time slips are entered thru Time and Expense entry; data collection/MES is not used so the Split Burden setting is not an option. We are using Epicor scheduling; using a crew size of 1 and inflating minutes caused big problems with the schedule. Any other ideas? We are on 9.05.701A.
??? Burden = Labor
or
Split Burden !?
Can you adjust the labor and or burden $ rate up to compensate?
Brad
I tried both with the same results. I even tried with both unchecked and nothing changed. That setting apparently only works if using data collection/MES to enter time; we use labor entry.
I thought of that, but the same rates are used for estimated and labor. Sure wish there there was an estimated production rate and an actual production rate.
@snielsen28 We have our scheduling resources separated; the first scheduling resource is our machine with only a burden rate and crew size is 0. We add a second scheduling resource for labor. This resource has a crew size and labor rate, no burden rate.
I’m not sure if it will help your situation.
I have seen a 10 person paint line setup with the crew size of one and the
labor and burden rates set to 10x the hourly rate.
Just a thought…
Darn, I thought that might work, but it didn’t change the results.
I tried it, it didn’t work either 
The actual burden cost is still inflated by the crew size multipler.
Sorry, my replies to your replies aren’t linking the way I thought they would!
It’s almost like you need a “fixed” checkbox for the burden rate, much like the “fixed qty” in the material area so it only applies the burden once.
How is your burden setup in the resource group? We have the Split Burden checkbox checked.
Yep, applying the burden once would make it match the logic of the estimated cost calculations. I have my resource group burden hours set up as split in my current testing. However, since we enter time thru labor (time and expense) entry, that setting doesn’t do anything. I’ve tested that check box and the labor = burden check box, the results are all the same. Sigh…
I read the help and that is what it says in the help (that it works if done through MES) but I was hoping it worked otherwise too since the Help is sometimes misleading. Looks like it is right, in this case. Darn! 
Depending who manages JOB Entry… the Burden Rate can be changed PER JOB operation.
You cud have a BPM auto-matically change it for the RG/OP in question!
I have not researched/tested…
but if the PDR(production Detail Report) - estimated costs are based on RG or Resources per Operation… and the JOB’s specific operation’s Burden is reduced to 25% of estimated burden rate, the math should work out.
Hmmm…I COULD use a BPM in labor entry to divide the burden rate by crew size. I already have one manipulating labor rates for setup so I know the BO I need. It’s not quite the same as the way MES handles split burden, but it’s better than nothing. The only issue I can think of would be the accuracy of actual burden costs if the job is set up for 4 people and only 3 report labor or vice versa. Yes…that happens here. I’ll do some testing and give our new controller the results…he gets to decide! 
Thanks so much for all of your suggestions! This group is amazing!!
1 Like