Is there a good rule of thumb why I would use Make to Job instead of a Subassembly within a job? Is there a setting on a part or BOM that would drive Make to Job jobs? Can you make Make to Job jobs to fulfill a job in a different site or warehouse? I’m trying to get on EpicWeb to see if there’s any documentation but apparently it’s down or I need to get a new password or something. I’ve been having trouble lately on there.
I’m curious to hear what others have to say on this topic. Here are a couple reasons we choose to use Job-to-Job links instead of subassemblies:
- When we want to have independent control over a job’s schedule and Engineered/Released states.
- When the parent job and child job need to be in different project phases. Project phase is only set at the job header.
2 Likes
one use might be to have one make-to-job job supply multiple other jobs…
Example…
Job 1 makes 100 handlebars for bikes. The make-to-job demands list 4 separate smaller jobs as the demand
Job 2 makes 25 bikes
job 3 makes 50 bikes
job 4 makes 10 bikes
job 5 makes 5 bikes
(that only adds up to 90 so on Job 1, there could be an additional 10 handlebars going to stock, OR shipping directly to customers).
Why would you do this? well… maybe it is more efficient to make 100 handlebars at a time. If you had this as a sub-assembly, then you would have one time where you only make 5 handlbars, and that is not as efficient.
Of course job 1 could also be “Make to stock” and you pull the inventory from stock rather than make direct. This all needs to be defined for your company as to what is the most efficient.
1 Like
You can set on the Part Method in Engineering WB. If a manufactured material is set as “Pull-As-Assembly”, it will be a Sub-Assembly on the Parent Part Job. If set as “Plan-As-Assembly”, it will show up as a material in the Parent Part Job, and a Job suggestion will be created to make a separate job for it.
Another thing I noticed is visibility to the full part method in Quote Entry. If these parts are set as “Pull-As-Assembly”, then the estimator can get into the details of the sub-assembly and swap out materials, if need be, but if the part is set as “Plan-As-Assembly”, they cannot.
Thanks for this. I’ll play around with the settings a bit. Ultimately, we may have a job for a complete “kit” that requires 10 subassemblies today. However, they build up the subassemblies today in batches that match our tooling… so a tank subassembly station may hold 12 tanks at a time. A cooler subassembly table might be able to fit 10 coolers on it. They always build in those lot sizes but the subassemblies are used across a plethora of different top-level kits… so rarely do we have kits in any other quantity than 1. Thus, a million subassemblies to process.
Historically, we’ve not built anything to stock and so the culture is not accustomed to that flow process. I’m slowly trying to drive us in that direction, but I thought Make to Job might be an easier transition since each job was still specific to certain orders, essentially.
Is there a strong case to be made why you would choose make to job over make to stock?
We opted to make-to-stock for subcomponents rather than job-to-job only because of process issues we ran into. If you run MRP and do not recycle unfirm jobs, the unfirm job number changes. If you firmed the child job to make to the unfirm job that changed, MRP is going to kick out more jobs.
If you don’t run MRP and go through creating the top level job, then create the child jobs you won’t run into issues with job to job like we did.
Jenn
1 Like
Great point! That would burn us for sure. We run MRP and don’t recycle MRP jobs. Recycling the jobs has a negative effect on something else we do… maybe related to the Configurator? I can’t recall but I remember we tried it and ended up killing the idea because it interfered with something else.