Does anyone have a situation where the next operation may vary depending on the completion of an inspection operation.
How do you handle it from a routing standpoint.
2 Likes
In that type of scenario, we generally would include a couple possible “next step” operations on the routing. There’s no harm in skipping operations, other than possible pesky alerts that a prior op was not completed.
This could obviously throw “scheduling” for a loop… but we’re not currently using Epicor to schedule.
So, we will often have jobs that progress from op 50 to op 70, for example, since op 60 wasn’t required on that particular run.
We also have cases where a part could fail inspection and have to go back to a previous op. But, in those cases, again, you can just charge more time to an earlier operation, even if it was already marked completed. Just have to be careful about completed qty’s. The alternative is adding the repeated operation back into the job… kinda on the fly.
Good example of why Job methods don’t always match the engineering method.
1 Like
This is how we’ve done it too.
1 Like
Yes, having the multiple operations in the routing is what we are doing, and from a scheduling standpoint, if we communicate which operation is not used, we can remove it or mark in complete with zero actual hours.
For operations that have failed and require rework, we do use the start rework activity.
2 Likes