So, here is how I like to explain the whole process of quality reporting for a job.
If a material handler notices that there is bad raw material, they should not issue it to a job. Instead, they should do an Inventory NCR to get it out of inventory and into the quality process.
You can’t catch everything! So, if an operator is running the job and notices raw material that cannot be used, they should be creating a Material NCR to remove the material from the job. This will remove the material cost from the job since there is no labor for raw material.
If the operator damages an in process part that is not just raw material, they should report that as scrap if it cannot be fixed. Think about glass, if you shatter it, it can’t be used no matter what. Instead of creating more work by creating an NCR, I say to just scrap it. The cost will stay on the job, which is what you want.
If the operator damages an in process part that is not just raw material, and they do not know if it can be fixed, they should report it as an NCR. Then QA can make a determination of the NCR. They may accept it and put it back on the job for the operator to do rework. They may reject it to a DMR for a larger review.
I don’t know the accounting impact of removing costs for bad parts. They may be able to claim some of it as a tax credit? That may be why the cost leaves the Job?
At the end of the day, I think you just need to figure out what you want to happen, and then set up Epicor to do that. That setting will either keep the money on the job or remove it. I think that Accounting would have to weigh in to see if there is some reason they need to know how much is being rejected from DMRs.
The scrap % on a method is to make sure that you are providing enough information to the system to accurately purchase material and schedule time. If you add scrap % to material, you are telling the system that you understand your process and know that more than likely there will be material fallout and need to issue X more material. If you add scrap % to operations, you are telling the system that while you know something should take 2 hours to do, you want to add X more time for unexpected issues or standard operator tasks. Think about machining, the CNC programs will tell you exactly how long something will take to machine in the resource, but does not account for what the operator may have to do. So you may want to add some time to the machining operation to account for those variances.
what does this mean… issue it to the job using issue material? And say nothing about it? Or… can you detail out what transactions you would make to “just scrap it”?
We sell rolls of material and so we chose to inventory our product in Rolls… rolls of varying length and width.
The issue is that when we have scrap, it’s never a full roll… it’s a partial roll. So they have to do this backwards equation and figure out A, what length is a “roll” for the job I am on… and then how much footage was scrap and then figure out how many “rolls” were scrapped…
What Epicor assumes you want anyway. Its not what management wants here so when I have to issue materials to a special scrap GL by hand. I wish they would let you choose how it handles scrap…
Labor is being added John, which is the annoying part. Picture a raw material moving through a slitting machine. The operator knows the material is bad, but per the process they are to let it go through and when the defect stops appearing they stop the machine and do a manual roll change and throw the bad roll away. Problem is the bad roll they are throwing away is not a “roll” in a sense that it’s not the length that a standard roll is, it’s 100 feet less… so how do they nonconform that… .8 of a roll? RL = roll and RL is a count, not length.
They should be entering the quantity of the job that will not be “good”. That is, if the Job is for 100 EA, they should be reporting 10 EA as bad. Once you add labor to material, you are reporting against the quantity you are trying to manufacture, not the material.
What I am saying happens is that we have variable lengths of the semifinshed good measured in a “length” UOM class that get processed through a machine and come out as a portion of an RL (a count UOM class). Any portion of that semifinshed good may have defects. So I guess we would non-conform partial RLs haha
I have been following and have a question. Does the class also have a linear feet UOM so you could nonconform X feet and not partial rolls?
We always want the job to retain the nonconforming material costs if it is our fault, so I have a routine that adds the nonconforming material as a new material on the job and we “accept” it back to the job on that material in inspection processing.
If you did something like that you would have the scrap data and maintain the standard cost.
im doing some testing with Scrap. i created a test job for prod qnty 10. I have 3 operations, op 10 completed qnty 10. Op 20 completed Qnty 9 Scrapped 1 via MES, Op 30 still wants me to complete 10.
shouldnt op 30 show that only 9 will be completed because 1 got scrapped? Right now the process is for them to manually adjust the prod quantity.
also job tracker doesnt reflect the 1 scrapped. is this a 10.2 issue and works better in 11?
