We have a situation that is the exception, not the rule for quite a few parts.
Usually, 1 of 2 things will happen.
1 - a part will be received and sent to incoming inspection /–not failed/rejected–/ They actually accept back to stock and issue this material to the subcontract job they’re creating.
2 - a part that has been received is later determined to be bad and nonconformanced /–not out of the system–/ They actually accept back to stock and issue this material to the subcontract job they’re creating.
In both cases for this question, the parts get sent to a subcontractor to repair/repaint/do work/etc on and returned.
Currently, MRP would see these as /-missing-/ non-nettable and generate a suggestion to purchase. So to avoid this, the team has historically been creating a job for a purchased part. Classic allowed them to create a job for a purchased part and it has been flying under the radar. Now for their kinetic uplift, they are seeing a message that a job must be a manufactured part.
The issues here are as follows - we don’t want manufactured suggestions to be the norm here, and want purchasing the part to be the norm. I presume we can avoid this with alternate parts and having the alternate manufactured part have generate suggs + process mrp turned off. However, there is still a secondary issue to this (the current system avoids this by issuing the purchased part to the job creating itself) - the job will not include any of the cost of the material because (I assumed, this may be wrong) you can’t issue the material to itself, so you don’t get any of the purchased cost of the original receipt (Unless you can in the alternate?).
I would strongly like to avoid using a nested subassembly on the original TLAs/subassemblies because this could cause a lot of unnecessary duplication creating all the alternate parts for those. I.e., the manufactured variant would use the original as a material and then be used on the same TLA’s and subassemblies as the original material, flagging those TLA’s / subassemblies as alternate parts to the originals. This would cause a lot of extra work for the team because 1 part being brought in may be used across many existing tla’s and subassemblies. I suspect this may be the only option but would like to ask for your input on this. If this is the only option, we may need to create a way for them to do this in bulk to alleviate some of the burden of it.
So my questions are basically -
1 - How should they be handling the situation when they find a bad part, should it be getting rejected out of the system at all or kept in/passing inspection?
2 - How should they be, if at all, structuring their jobs for this subcontracting?
3 - How do we ensure cost fully incorporates the material and subcontract costs so the FIFO layers are accurate?
4 - Can we achieve all this without making alternate TLA’s/subassemblies?
Can you expand your situation with an example? I’m unsure as to what the actual flow is that you are referencing. Are these purchased parts or subcontract operations that you are receiving? Do they become DMRs and if so, how are they processed?
I went and talked to the users again to make sure I have it correct.
These are purchased parts and they’re always intended to be purchased parts. But for whatever reason they’ll get nonconformanced. Whether it be because the vendor never painted them, programmed the component wrong, etc. Because of vendor lead times and the nature of the work, sometimes it’s faster to have a subcontractor deal with fixing them.
So right now, the users are creating a non-conformance for the parts. They the create a job for a purchased part (which is the bottleneck) and the engineering team adds the routing to the job. They also add the material to itself on the job! I wouldn’t have even thought this was possible, but they do. They then accept the nonconformance material back to stock and issue it to this job.
Now that I realize they aren’t scrapping these out of the system, I am going to try setting up an alternate part that’s manufactured and assign the material to it. If this works, rather than set up the routing directly on the job the engineering team would create an alternate (manufactured, with the material requirement) for the part and then the job would get created for this alternate instead.
In theory, this would keep the material cost on the job and add in the subcontract cost to the manufactured part. Hopefully I’m not misinterpreting how alternates behave…
You could also just create a new Operation that is subcontract after the operation that it was found at and send out the parts and all of the costs will be on the one job.
They aren’t being found at an operation generally, it’s before they’re issued to any material. Or when they are occasionally found at a job, they may have 100 issued to the job but 500 in stock to send out as well.
Because of min order qty or lead times, they may order a part up to a year in advance but won’t firm the jobs until 2 weeks out from the start time for that release. In our case, I’d say 90% of the qty sent out this way is for items in stock before ever making it to a job.
I went back and tried to correct/append to the original post.
It’s not usually a consistent part, these are all exceptions to the general rule for that part. It all depends on market availability, expediting jobs, price breaks, other factors, etc. But it happens often enough that they created a whole job tracking for it in classic rather than keeping track outside the system.
These are mostly exception parts. Some of these are items that get inspected already at receipt, some of them do not. But the problem is that they subcontract it out (as an exception only when they are found bad, not the norm for this part) rather than send it back to vendor or scrap it, they retain ownership of the material and want to run it through a job to track + cost the subcontract portion (and to make MRP see the quantity so it’s not resuggested to purchase). These may be recurring issues from the vendor, or they may be first time issues.
When I get some more time today/tonight I will try recreating the way they currently do it but using a manufactured alternate.
Thought I’d follow up - I didn’t realize that Quick Job Entry had different rules applied than creating it from scratch, including in the “new job” within Job Entry. As long as the part gets entered in the job entry screen itself and not the Quick Job slide out, purchased parts can still be “manufactured” through a job. Which once the engineering adds their routing and material to these exception jobs, it gets both costs accounted for by the end so no change in process for them.
