Managing Sub-Assemblies


(system) #1
Also, make sure your related operation on the sub-assemblies are correct.
You should sepicifc the operation that requires the sub-assembly to be complete. This should be done on all levels.
Â
Scott


On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Rob Bucek <rbucek@...> wrote:

Â
<div>
  
  
  <p>So change the finish to start relationship to finish to finish<br>

Rob Bucek
Production Control Manager
PH: (715) 284-5376 ext 311
Mobile: (715)896-4832
FAX: (715)284-4084
[cid:1.234354861@...]<http://www.dsmfg.com/>
(Click the logo to view our site)<http://www.dsmfg.com/>

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Derek Bailey
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 9:01 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Vantage] Managing Sub-Assemblies

The system wants to batch the sub-assembly work, meaning it wants to finish a child assembly complete before it schedules the parent assembly to start. This sometimes schedules a job to start a week or more before it finishes. I reality, all of those operations are happening concurrently within the cell, and the entire job will only take 1-3 days. I was able to get around this via phantom BOM's. However, Production wants to backflush labor. No big deal, I made the final operation a quantity only, and all preceding operations backflush. An operator can't claim non-conformance on an backflushed operation.

On Friday, October 18, 2013 7:55 AM, Rob Bucek <rbucek@...> wrote:
ditto

Rob Bucek
Production Control Manager
PH: (715) 284-5376 ext 311
Mobile: (715)896-4832
FAX: (715)284-4084
[cid:1.234354861@...<mailto:1.234354861@...>]<http://www.dsmfg.com/>

(Click the logo to view our site)<http://www.dsmfg.com/>



From: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com> [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Scotty K.

Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 7:40 AM

To: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com>

Subject: Re: [Vantage] Managing Sub-Assemblies



I would revisit the heart of the problem.

Why are you not getting accurate required by dates for needing materials?

Our builds are also very complex with several nested sub-assemblies and we rely on this functionality. It has been working fine in 700 and most recently in 702A.



Scott



On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 7:23 AM, Derek Bailey <iarouleur@…<mailto:iarouleur@…><mailto:iarouleur@…<mailto:iarouleur@…>>> wrote:


All,

We're currently on 9.05.702.

We produce product through a dozen value stream cells. There are several steps involved in producing a final product, such as machining, welding, assembly, and testing. We currently have have multiple sub-assemblies created for the parts mid process. I'm in scheduling, and I want to get away from using the sub-assemblies, because, when scheduled they don't generate accurate required by dates for needed materials. I'm leaning more in favor of a "flat routing". I'd have one operation, with a crew size of 4, and a production standard that represents the flow of product through the cell. In testing, this achieved what I was looking for. However, my QA department wants to still be able to claim non-conformance at the sub-assembly level (with my flat routing, when non-conformance is claimed, it looks like we're claiming a non-conformance on the final assembly). So, I've left the sub-assemblies in place, but moved all materials and labor into the final assembly. I then made a non-conformance claiming operation, with a 999,999.9999 p/h standard for each sub-assembly. Now my cost accounting and engineering staff don't like that because they lose sight of what level the materials are really used at, and when they do a standard cost roll up, the sub-assemblies roll with $0.00. So, I then created alternate methods. My primary methods will essentially be "production/scheduling" methods using the flat BOM/routing, and the alternate becomes "Costing/Engineering" methods using the current structure with sub-assemblies with operations and materials at their respective asm level. This seems to solve most of my hurdles, except we will now have to maintain two methods, which is not ideal.

I should also mention that with the flat BOM/routing, I also want to start backflushing labor and materials. If I can get that working I then want to explore the auto-receipt into inventory feature. I think I can really simplify the whole claiming and receiving process, and save a significant amount of time. While also achieving more accurate job costing.

Sorry for the novel, but I'm just looking to see if anyone else has handled a similar situation more efficiently then what I've been coming up with.

Thanks,

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

Useful links for the Yahoo!Groups Vantage Board are: ( Note: You must have already linked your email address to a yahoo id to enable access. )
(1) To access the Files Section of our Yahoo!Group for Report Builder and Crystal Reports and other 'goodies', please goto: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/. <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/>

(2) To search through old msg’s goto: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/messages

(3) To view links to Vendors that provide Vantage services goto: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/linksYahoo! Groups Links



(Yahoo! ID required)



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


</div>
 


<div style="color:rgb(255,255,255);min-height:0px;"></div>


(system) #2
All,

We're currently on 9.05.702.

We produce product through a dozen value stream cells.  There are several steps involved in producing a final product, such as machining, welding, assembly, and testing.  We currently have have multiple sub-assemblies created for the parts mid process.  I'm in scheduling, and I want to get away from using the sub-assemblies, because, when scheduled they don't generate accurate required by dates for needed materials.  I'm leaning more in favor of a "flat routing".  I'd have one operation, with a crew size of 4, and a production standard that represents the flow of product through the cell.  In testing, this achieved what I was looking for.  However, my QA department wants to still be able to claim non-conformance at the sub-assembly level (with my flat routing, when non-conformance is claimed, it looks like we're claiming a non-conformance on the final assembly).  So, I've left the sub-assemblies in place, but moved all materials and labor into the final assembly.  I then made a non-conformance claiming operation, with a 999,999.9999 p/h standard for each sub-assembly.  Now my cost accounting and engineering staff don't like that because they lose sight of what level the materials are really used at, and when they do a standard cost roll up, the sub-assemblies roll with $0.00.  So, I then created alternate methods.  My primary methods will essentially be "production/scheduling" methods using the flat BOM/routing, and the alternate becomes "Costing/Engineering" methods using the current structure with sub-assemblies with operations and materials at their respective asm level.  This seems to solve most of my hurdles, except we will now have to maintain two methods, which is not ideal.  

I should also mention that with the flat BOM/routing, I also want to start backflushing labor and materials.  If I can get that working I then want to explore the auto-receipt into inventory feature.  I think I can really simplify the whole claiming and receiving process, and save a significant amount of time.  While also achieving more accurate job costing.

Sorry for the novel, but I'm just looking to see if anyone else has handled a similar situation more efficiently then what I've been coming up with.

Thanks,  

(system) #3
I would revisit the heart of the problem.
Why are you not getting accurate required by dates for needing materials?
Our builds are also very complex with several nested sub-assemblies and we rely on this functionality. It has been working fine in 700 and most recently in 702A.
Â
Scott


On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 7:23 AM, Derek Bailey <iarouleur@...> wrote:

Â
<div>
  
  
  <p><div style="font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:12pt;"><div>All,</div><div><br></div><div style="font-family:HelveticaNeue,;font-size:16px;font-style:normal;background-color:transparent;">

We’re currently on 9.05.702.


We produce product through a dozen value stream cells. Â There are several steps involved in producing a final product, such as machining, welding, assembly, and testing. Â We currently have have multiple sub-assemblies created for the parts mid process. Â I'm in scheduling, and I want to get away from using the sub-assemblies, because, when scheduled they don't generate accurate required by dates for needed materials. Â I'm leaning more in favor of a "flat routing". Â I'd have one operation, with a crew size of 4, and a production standard that represents the flow of product through the cell. Â In testing, this achieved what I was looking for. Â However, my QA department wants to still be able to claim non-conformance at the sub-assembly level (with my flat routing, when non-conformance is claimed, it looks like we're claiming a non-conformance on the final assembly). Â So, I've left the sub-assemblies in place, but moved all materials and labor into the final assembly. Â I then made a non-conformance claiming operation, with a 999,999.9999 p/h standard for each sub-assembly. Â Now my cost accounting and engineering staff don't like that because they lose sight of what level the materials are really used at, and when they do a standard cost roll up, the sub-assemblies roll with $0.00. Â So, I then created alternate methods. Â My primary methods will essentially be "production/scheduling" methods using the flat BOM/routing, and the alternate becomes "Costing/Engineering" methods using the current structure with sub-assemblies with operations and materials at their respective asm level. Â This seems to solve most of my hurdles, except we will now have to maintain two methods, which is not ideal. Â

I should also mention that with the flat BOM/routing, I also want to start backflushing labor and materials. Â If I can get that working I then want to explore the auto-receipt into inventory feature. Â I think I can really simplify the whole claiming and receiving process, and save a significant amount of time. Â While also achieving more accurate job costing.

Sorry for the novel, but I'm just looking to see if anyone else has handled a similar situation more efficiently then what I've been coming up with.

Thanks, Â

</div>
 


<div style="color:rgb(255,255,255);min-height:0px;"></div>


(system) #4
ditto

Rob Bucek
Production Control Manager
PH: (715) 284-5376 ext 311
Mobile: (715)896-4832
FAX: (715)284-4084
[cid:1.234354861@...]<http://www.dsmfg.com/>
(Click the logo to view our site)<http://www.dsmfg.com/>

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Scotty K.
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 7:40 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Vantage] Managing Sub-Assemblies


I would revisit the heart of the problem.
Why are you not getting accurate required by dates for needing materials?
Our builds are also very complex with several nested sub-assemblies and we rely on this functionality. It has been working fine in 700 and most recently in 702A.

Scott

On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 7:23 AM, Derek Bailey <iarouleur@...<mailto:iarouleur@...>> wrote:

All,

We're currently on 9.05.702.

We produce product through a dozen value stream cells. There are several steps involved in producing a final product, such as machining, welding, assembly, and testing. We currently have have multiple sub-assemblies created for the parts mid process. I'm in scheduling, and I want to get away from using the sub-assemblies, because, when scheduled they don't generate accurate required by dates for needed materials. I'm leaning more in favor of a "flat routing". I'd have one operation, with a crew size of 4, and a production standard that represents the flow of product through the cell. In testing, this achieved what I was looking for. However, my QA department wants to still be able to claim non-conformance at the sub-assembly level (with my flat routing, when non-conformance is claimed, it looks like we're claiming a non-conformance on the final assembly). So, I've left the sub-assemblies in place, but moved all materials and labor into the final assembly. I then made a non-conformance claiming operation, with a 999,999.9999 p/h standard for each sub-assembly. Now my cost accounting and engineering staff don't like that because they lose sight of what level the materials are really used at, and when they do a standard cost roll up, the sub-assemblies roll with $0.00. So, I then created alternate methods. My primary methods will essentially be "production/scheduling" methods using the flat BOM/routing, and the alternate becomes "Costing/Engineering" methods using the current structure with sub-assemblies with operations and materials at their respective asm level. This seems to solve most of my hurdles, except we will now have to maintain two methods, which is not ideal.

I should also mention that with the flat BOM/routing, I also want to start backflushing labor and materials. If I can get that working I then want to explore the auto-receipt into inventory feature. I think I can really simplify the whole claiming and receiving process, and save a significant amount of time. While also achieving more accurate job costing.

Sorry for the novel, but I'm just looking to see if anyone else has handled a similar situation more efficiently then what I've been coming up with.

Thanks,




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

(system) #5
The system wants to batch the sub-assembly work, meaning it wants to finish a child assembly complete before it schedules the parent assembly to start.  This sometimes schedules a job to start a week or more before it finishes.  I reality, all of those operations are happening concurrently within the cell, and the entire job will only take 1-3 days.  I was able to get around this via phantom BOM's.  However, Production wants to backflush labor.  No big deal, I made the final operation a quantity only, and all preceding operations backflush.  An operator can't claim non-conformance on an backflushed operation.
  


On Friday, October 18, 2013 7:55 AM, Rob Bucek <rbucek@...> wrote:
ditto

Rob Bucek
Production Control Manager
PH: (715) 284-5376 ext 311
Mobile: (715)896-4832
FAX: (715)284-4084
[cid:1.234354861@...]<http://www.dsmfg.com/>
(Click the logo to view our site)<http://www.dsmfg.com/>

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Scotty K.
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 7:40 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Vantage] Managing Sub-Assemblies


I would revisit the heart of the problem.
Why are you not getting accurate required by dates for needing materials?
Our builds are also very complex with several nested sub-assemblies and we rely on this functionality. It has been working fine in 700 and most recently in 702A.

Scott

On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 7:23 AM, Derek Bailey <iarouleur@...<mailto:iarouleur@...>> wrote:

All,

We're currently on 9.05.702.

We produce product through a dozen value stream cells.  There are several steps involved in producing a final product, such as machining, welding, assembly, and testing.  We currently have have multiple sub-assemblies created for the parts mid process.  I'm in scheduling, and I want to get away from using the sub-assemblies, because, when scheduled they don't generate accurate required by dates for needed materials.  I'm leaning more in favor of a "flat routing".  I'd have one operation, with a crew size of 4, and a production standard that represents the flow of product through the cell.  In testing, this achieved what I was looking for.  However, my QA department wants to still be able to claim non-conformance at the sub-assembly level (with my flat routing, when non-conformance is claimed, it looks like we're claiming a non-conformance on the final assembly).  So, I've left the sub-assemblies in place, but moved all materials and labor into the final assembly.  I then made a non-conformance claiming operation, with a 999,999.9999 p/h standard for each sub-assembly.  Now my cost accounting and engineering staff don't like that because they lose sight of what level the materials are really used at, and when they do a standard cost roll up, the sub-assemblies roll with $0.00.  So, I then created alternate methods.  My primary methods will essentially be "production/scheduling" methods using the flat BOM/routing, and the alternate becomes "Costing/Engineering" methods using the current structure with sub-assemblies with operations and materials at their respective asm level.  This seems to solve most of my hurdles, except we will now have to maintain two methods, which is not ideal.

I should also mention that with the flat BOM/routing, I also want to start backflushing labor and materials.  If I can get that working I then want to explore the auto-receipt into inventory feature.  I think I can really simplify the whole claiming and receiving process, and save a significant amount of time.  While also achieving more accurate job costing.

Sorry for the novel, but I'm just looking to see if anyone else has handled a similar situation more efficiently then what I've been coming up with.

Thanks,




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Useful links for the Yahoo!Groups Vantage Board are: ( Note:  You must have already linked your email address to a yahoo id to enable access. )
(1) To access the Files Section of our Yahoo!Group for Report Builder and Crystal Reports and other 'goodies', please goto: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/.
(2) To search through old msg's goto: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/messages
(3) To view links to Vendors that provide Vantage services goto: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/linksYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/join

    (Yahoo! ID required)


<*> To change settings via email:
    vantage-digest@yahoogroups.com
    vantage-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    vantage-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/





(system) #6
So change the finish to start relationship to finish to finish

Rob Bucek
Production Control Manager
PH: (715) 284-5376 ext 311
Mobile: (715)896-4832
FAX: (715)284-4084
[cid:1.234354861@...]<http://www.dsmfg.com/>
(Click the logo to view our site)<http://www.dsmfg.com/>

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Derek Bailey
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 9:01 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Vantage] Managing Sub-Assemblies


The system wants to batch the sub-assembly work, meaning it wants to finish a child assembly complete before it schedules the parent assembly to start. This sometimes schedules a job to start a week or more before it finishes. I reality, all of those operations are happening concurrently within the cell, and the entire job will only take 1-3 days. I was able to get around this via phantom BOM's. However, Production wants to backflush labor. No big deal, I made the final operation a quantity only, and all preceding operations backflush. An operator can't claim non-conformance on an backflushed operation.


On Friday, October 18, 2013 7:55 AM, Rob Bucek <rbucek@...> wrote:
ditto

Rob Bucek
Production Control Manager
PH: (715) 284-5376 ext 311
Mobile: (715)896-4832
FAX: (715)284-4084
[cid:1.234354861@...<mailto:1.234354861@...>]<http://www.dsmfg.com/>
(Click the logo to view our site)<http://www.dsmfg.com/>

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com> [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Scotty K.
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 7:40 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Vantage] Managing Sub-Assemblies


I would revisit the heart of the problem.
Why are you not getting accurate required by dates for needing materials?
Our builds are also very complex with several nested sub-assemblies and we rely on this functionality. It has been working fine in 700 and most recently in 702A.

Scott

On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 7:23 AM, Derek Bailey <iarouleur@...<mailto:iarouleur@...><mailto:iarouleur@...<mailto:iarouleur@...>>> wrote:

All,

We're currently on 9.05.702.

We produce product through a dozen value stream cells. There are several steps involved in producing a final product, such as machining, welding, assembly, and testing. We currently have have multiple sub-assemblies created for the parts mid process. I'm in scheduling, and I want to get away from using the sub-assemblies, because, when scheduled they don't generate accurate required by dates for needed materials. I'm leaning more in favor of a "flat routing". I'd have one operation, with a crew size of 4, and a production standard that represents the flow of product through the cell. In testing, this achieved what I was looking for. However, my QA department wants to still be able to claim non-conformance at the sub-assembly level (with my flat routing, when non-conformance is claimed, it looks like we're claiming a non-conformance on the final assembly). So, I've left the sub-assemblies in place, but moved all materials and labor into the final assembly. I then made a non-conformance claiming operation, with a 999,999.9999 p/h standard for each sub-assembly. Now my cost accounting and engineering staff don't like that because they lose sight of what level the materials are really used at, and when they do a standard cost roll up, the sub-assemblies roll with $0.00. So, I then created alternate methods. My primary methods will essentially be "production/scheduling" methods using the flat BOM/routing, and the alternate becomes "Costing/Engineering" methods using the current structure with sub-assemblies with operations and materials at their respective asm level. This seems to solve most of my hurdles, except we will now have to maintain two methods, which is not ideal.

I should also mention that with the flat BOM/routing, I also want to start backflushing labor and materials. If I can get that working I then want to explore the auto-receipt into inventory feature. I think I can really simplify the whole claiming and receiving process, and save a significant amount of time. While also achieving more accurate job costing.

Sorry for the novel, but I'm just looking to see if anyone else has handled a similar situation more efficiently then what I've been coming up with.

Thanks,




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Useful links for the Yahoo!Groups Vantage Board are: ( Note: You must have already linked your email address to a yahoo id to enable access. )
(1) To access the Files Section of our Yahoo!Group for Report Builder and Crystal Reports and other 'goodies', please goto: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/. <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/>
(2) To search through old msg's goto: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/messages
(3) To view links to Vendors that provide Vantage services goto: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/linksYahoo! Groups Links

(Yahoo! ID required)







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]