Good day,
Hope that I can explain this correctly.
We have a situation where we need to raise a nonconformance on a part that is a part of “subassembly” has been built on a Kanban job, received to stock, then issued to a job as a material.
We would like to raise the nonconformance from the job since that is where the issue is found, instead of inventory.
Curious to know how others are managing this type of situation.
Appreciate any feel back or questions if this isn’t clear.
Thanks so much!
On the Operation it was found, instead of reporting a quantity of 1, do a nonconformance of 1 instead.
Hi John,
Thank you for your response. This is how we are currently are processing, however we would like to track the specific material that fails.
Any thoughts?
So, you have a subassembly that is produced on another Job. Are any operations being performed on that subassembly before you find out there is a nonconformance?
If you’re using the Kanban Receipts program for the job that creates the subassembly part, you can specify both nonconforming and scrap quantities directly on that form. This may be a change your current process if you fill out that form PRIOR to running the parts… you won’t know those quantities until AFTER you’ve run them.
Alternatively, you can nonconform them directly out of Inventory after they’ve been received to stock.
Finally, once they’ve been issued to the job, they can be nonconformed on a Job Material Nonconformance before they actually get worked on.
That’s the direction I was heading, you just got there before me.
but you asked the right question… this kind of thing is ALWAYS a matter of timing.
Hi Guys,
The problem part is a material on the Kanban Job. it is not Identified until the Kanban part is issued to another job and that job is in it’s final stages of testing.
They will take the subassembly apart (part received on Kanban job) and replace the part with in it.
I hope this makes sense.
Let me know
Just to make sure I have it straight, you create a subassembly part on a Kanban job. One of the materials used on that job is defective, but you don’t know that until the finished subassembly part is is used as a material on yet a further upper-level part job, and THAT job is in its final inspection.
What EXACTLY would you like to do?
Once the parts have been transacted off the original job, AFAIK there is no way to “put them back” so you can then nonconform them.
Of this, I think that the best way to manage this would be for the part that is built on the kanban to be added to the job as a subassembly and issued as an assembly.? Not sure what that will do to planning…
Before we start down that road, what exactly is the failure, and is there any way that that can be tested for and discovered on the first job? If there is ANY way to find this out beforehand that would be the way to go.
Yes, you can make it a direct subassembly, but that has its own set of conditions and results. Let’s try the easy thing first.
That’s a great question. I don’t’ know if there is a way, but they are saying that they don’t find it until the very end.
I’m extremely comfortable with the use of multiple subassemblies to mee it seems like the only way to get the failed part on the end job.
What EXACTLY is your end goal? From this last post, it sounds like you want to be able to REPLACE the defective material directly… if that is the end goal then yes, the material has to exist on the job somewhere… but there IS another way to do this without messing with the planning folks.
You COULD put the material item on the BOM for the upper-level finished part with a QtyPer of zero (so it wouldn’t appear on the pick list or drive purchase suggestions)… then you could just issue a new one when the need required.
The goal is to have the nonconformance reflect the job and part.
If by “reflect” you are also including cost, that is not going to happen if they are separate jobs. You will need the subassembly to be on the same job as the final upper-level part.
Hi Ernie,
For now, cost isn’t the issue. It’s the tracking of the defects that is the ask. I’m trying to understand the production process here better. I’m still new to this company and haven’t had experience with the production flow in Epicor. Doing testing and adding the midlevel part as a subassembly, but then issuing it as one as well.
As for this question
“You COULD put the material item on the BOM for the upper-level finished part with a QtyPer of zero (so it wouldn’t appear on the pick list or drive purchase suggestions)… then you could just issue a new one when the need required.”
It isn’t just one part. They’ve generally stated that there are several parts that there are issues with, although I suspect they’re all related to a sub assembly.
Thank you so much for all of your guidance! 
Happy to help! We’ve all been here, some of us still are.
This is not an uncommon process, if a subassembly is relatively easy to put together and can be done in “open” time (“Hey Sue, between other things today can you make 50 of CRJ-900-EF5?”), and over the course of a day or two she just does it and when she has them completed gives them all to the supervisor who does the Kanban Receipt entry. Boom. No big deal.
One downside is that (as you’ve discovered) there’s no traceability. If 3 or 4 people are constantly making them to keep the bin full, nobody can tell who made which ones. If THIS is your biggest issue (Quality wants to narrow down to see if a single person is involved in most of the defects), you can turn on Lot Tracking and make sure the supervisors are entering the correct Employee ID. It’s a couple of extra steps. Changing the MOM on the ultimate parent part for these subassemblies means a number of changes up and down the line that will potentially make LOTS of people unhappy.