No apology necessary Rob, this is all very good stuff.
It doesn't matter how many times you pilot the system before going
live, these issues only really come out when you are running it for
real. You just have to experiment so as to learn all the things the
book and the consultants don't actually tell you. That said when you
buy a car the salesman doesn't expect to have to tell you how to
drive, merely where all the knobs and dials are. :o)
We are coming from a non MRP background, and being a contract
manufacturer we make everybody else's products and not our own. That
places you in a position where you are not in control of your own
destiny, you have a very wide range of parts to manage, very low long
term visibility of demand, constant change, and your customers
inherently expect you to clean up the inadequacies of their own
poorly run systems. Now that is challenging!
Getting MRP to behave is proving interesting, however we have been
sensisible in that we have only gone live with a handful of products.
We are making lots of mistakes but this is also teaching us how to
run the system properly and everytime a new product is loaded and run
in Vantage, its better than the previous one.
The training and cultural issues are huge. We realise now that a lot
of problems with our previous system where caused directly by poor
procedural control and operators who did not keep the system properly
maintained. Vantage provides much better inventory controls than we
had previously and therefore I can now see how bad things where! :o(
Writing procedures / process flow-charts is as important as any other
aspect of running Vantage.
Thanks again for the advice Rob, its always welcome.
Nick
--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, Robert Brown <robertb_versa@...>
wrote:
message can get lost.
in your live system.
parameters if you aren't happy with results.
will just get the message again the next time MRP (or Generate
Purchasing Suggestions on its own) is run.
determine & categorize WHY they are getting overwhelmed with
messages. Have them discussing the issue they uncover (daily) so you
and they can assess what commonality of the drivers of these messages
exists (and which ones are wasting your collective time the most) -
and then adjusting planning policies (safety or Min OH calc rules,
allowable days early/late, etc.,) to suit.
systemic policies - and to get a quick positive impact from the
decisions made.
but, again - nothing you do can't be 'undone'. You just have to have
your team committed to working on it and communicating with you and
each other so you can assess the effectiveness of changes (and either
increase their magnitude or reverse them) QUICKLY.
It doesn't matter how many times you pilot the system before going
live, these issues only really come out when you are running it for
real. You just have to experiment so as to learn all the things the
book and the consultants don't actually tell you. That said when you
buy a car the salesman doesn't expect to have to tell you how to
drive, merely where all the knobs and dials are. :o)
We are coming from a non MRP background, and being a contract
manufacturer we make everybody else's products and not our own. That
places you in a position where you are not in control of your own
destiny, you have a very wide range of parts to manage, very low long
term visibility of demand, constant change, and your customers
inherently expect you to clean up the inadequacies of their own
poorly run systems. Now that is challenging!
Getting MRP to behave is proving interesting, however we have been
sensisible in that we have only gone live with a handful of products.
We are making lots of mistakes but this is also teaching us how to
run the system properly and everytime a new product is loaded and run
in Vantage, its better than the previous one.
The training and cultural issues are huge. We realise now that a lot
of problems with our previous system where caused directly by poor
procedural control and operators who did not keep the system properly
maintained. Vantage provides much better inventory controls than we
had previously and therefore I can now see how bad things where! :o(
Writing procedures / process flow-charts is as important as any other
aspect of running Vantage.
Thanks again for the advice Rob, its always welcome.
Nick
--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, Robert Brown <robertb_versa@...>
wrote:
>fingers' re email and tend to include so much detail the central
> Nick,
>
> Sorry for the length of the reply. I'm cursed with 'blabber
message can get lost.
>non-live training/test db and somethings that are no risk at testing
> There as are some things that are best experimented with in your
in your live system.
>system category as you can always immediately rerun it using your old
> I'm of the opinion the MRP is in the no risk - test in the live
parameters if you aren't happy with results.
>you fix the root cause (Example: mis-set safety/Min OH, etc.,) you
>
> Deleting messages can be done - but it is a losing game as, unless
will just get the message again the next time MRP (or Generate
Purchasing Suggestions on its own) is run.
>fences, I would first get the planners/buyers involved by having them
> Before playing with limiting the scope of MRP re 'frozen schedule'
determine & categorize WHY they are getting overwhelmed with
messages. Have them discussing the issue they uncover (daily) so you
and they can assess what commonality of the drivers of these messages
exists (and which ones are wasting your collective time the most) -
and then adjusting planning policies (safety or Min OH calc rules,
allowable days early/late, etc.,) to suit.
>planning field data to bring them in compliance with your new
> That will allow you to mass review and pro-actively 'fix' part
systemic policies - and to get a quick positive impact from the
decisions made.
>large in magnitude (and have to scale back to get optimum results)
>
> You might take a wrong turn on some decisions - or make changes too
but, again - nothing you do can't be 'undone'. You just have to have
your team committed to working on it and communicating with you and
each other so you can assess the effectiveness of changes (and either
increase their magnitude or reverse them) QUICKLY.
>not
> Good luck!
>
> Rob Brown
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Sun, 7/20/08, nmtaylor1969 <n.taylor@...> wrote:
> From: nmtaylor1969 <n.taylor@...>
> Subject: [Vantage] Re: Change And New PO Suggestions In 8.03.305K
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, July 20, 2008, 3:26 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rob,
>
>
>
> I have read this through 5 times and now my head hurts...! ;o)
>
>
>
> There is some really good stuff here, some of which is probably
>
> obvious to you ( like specifying an MRP cut-off date ), but I had
>you
> thought about this!! :o(
>
>
>
> I am going to run a few tests in our test database and I will let
>processes)
> know how we get on.
>
>
>
> Do you ever just delete suggestions if they are nothing more than
>
> noise ?
>
>
>
> Many thanks,
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups .com, Robert Brown <robertb_versa@ ...>
>
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Nick,
>
> >
>
> > YES:
>
> >
>
> > (A.) If you have not set up (appropriate for you & your
>due
> limiting criteria on your POs such as:
>
> >
>
> > (1) Locking Qty: so MRP doesn't tell you to reduce a PO qty
>PO
> this week and then also tell you to increase a PO qty for the same
>
> part due NEXT week.
>
> >
>
> > (2) Locking Schedules: so MRP won't tell you to move an Open
>one
> release delivery schedule in - just to tell you to move then next
>processes)
> due (same part/PO/line) OUT.
>
> >
>
> > (B.) If you have not set up (appropriate for you & your
>works
> message limiting criteria on you Parts such as:
>
> >
>
> > (1) Regularly reassessed and maintained Safety, Min O/H
>
> (perhaps Days Supply place as Mark W has reported to have found
>for
> well in his environment) , Order to Max (if a non zero Max exists)
>
> >
>
> > (2) Accurate & maintain MRP Min/Max/Multi order suggestion
>
> qty's for your Parts.
>
> >
>
> > (3) Allowable "Days Early" and "Days Late" Part tolerences
>will
> MRP messaging. (Only POs Early more than your "Days Early" value
>can
> appear in your exception messages & vice-versa.
>
> >
>
> > (C.) Limited MRP itself by specifying the 'frozen zone' through
>
> which MRP should not generate messages (defined as 'today' thru the
>
> Start Date value you can enter when running MRP).
>
> >
>
> > (D.) Vendor Kanbans (when you & your vendors are ready to handle
>
> certain short lead time parts this way).
>
> >
>
> > (E.) Contract POs (when you & your vendors are ready to handle
>
> inherently long lead time parts this way).
>
> >
>
> > CAREFUL experimenting with of use of these controlling elements
>PO
> turn MRP messages from being 85% noise & 15% valid, trustworthy
>
> content to up to a 50/50 split (with far fewer messages overall).
>
> >
>
> > Even with these things appropriately (for your conditions and
>
> processes) in use, you still need to see each part's message as a
>
> whole rather than stumble upon them one at a time as New, Cancel or
>
> Change messages.
>
> >
>
> > That is what Time Phase is for (as messages ARE often
>
> interdependent) .
>
> >
>
> > A good rule of thumb: Review (in Time phase) you parts with New
>some
> suggestions first (grouped by vendor and sub sorted by 'place order
>
> by' date) and process as appropriate (or tweak your Open PO qty or
>
> date locking & each part's MRP factors so you get won't get an
>
> inappropriate message next time) - Perhaps out only a few weeks
>
> by 'place order by' date.
>
> >
>
> > Run a net change.
>
> >
>
> > Review any change messages next (by vendor by message type and
>
> suggested change date). Move IN messages 1st, Move Out 2nd, Cancel
>
> last. (Run net change between each.)
>
> >
>
> > A few weeks of aggressively following such a process (as well
>
> experimenting with MRP options & implementing Kan-Bans or Contract
>
> POs where appropriate) and your messaging will begin to take on
>you
> pertinence (and your Buyers won't be totally frustrated).
>
> >
>
> > Also: Don't feel compelled to do everything out of Buyers WB if
>(context
> adopt this 'message type' sequence processing. Run one less
>MRP
> linked) app and use New PO Suggestions directly and then Change
>
> Suggestions directly.
>
> >
>
> > ...MRP optimization "101" on ANY system - not just Vantage (as
>fit
> is a very blunt tool out of the box and needs to be sharpened to
>its
> your conditions, Buyer resource limitations and processes). Your
>
> Buyers must be part of 'sharpening' that tool as they know their
>
> parts/vendors - and it will give them a sense of empowerment and
>
> build a culture of teamwork.
>
> >
>
> > Go Lean & KanBan aggressively (simultaneously) as MRP 'push' on
>the
> own drives inventory levels higher (even when optimized) whereas
>
> Lean/KanBan 'pull' does not (when done right - and what is 'right'
>
> today may not be 'right' next month/quarter if/when business
>
> conditions & part usage patterns inevitably change).
>
> >
>
> > Good luck (and make it 'fun' for your people as it is a culture
>
> change for most companies to become proactive instead of reactive).
>
> >
>
> > Rob Brown
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- On Sun, 7/20/08, nmtaylor1969 <n.taylor@ .> wrote:
>
> > From: nmtaylor1969 <n.taylor@ .>
>
> > Subject: [Vantage] Change And New PO Suggestions In 8.03.305K
>
> > To: vantage@yahoogroups .com
>
> > Date: Sunday, July 20, 2008, 5:26 AM
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Can anyone tell me if they have found the need to see both PO
>
> change
>
> > and new PO suggestions all in once place ?
>
> >
>
> > We are fairly new to running a formal MRP system and we are
>
> > generating a lot of "suggestion noise" mainly due to the MRP
>
> rules /
>
> > planning processes not being fully implemented yet. Obviously we
>
> will
>
> > rationalise this with time and a greater experience of running
>its
> > system.
>
> >
>
> > I am finding it difficult to see the whole picture because change
>
> > suggestions are in once place, and new suggestions in another. In
>
> > some cases new suggestions represent the other half of a
>
> cancellation
>
> > change suggestion elsewhere, and the picture must be viewed in
>
> > entirety before an action can be taken.
>
> >
>
> > Has anybody written a dashboard to do this, or should it be an
>
> > unnecessary requirement if our system is running correctly... ?
>
> >
>
> > Thanks,
>
> >
>
> > Nick
>
> >
>