Job Splitting - Backwards Job Splitting

Kinetic ERP
1

We do not currently split out jobs in Epicor, although we do physically split the paperwork on the floor. We want to keep Epicor up to date with our actual job statuses. We have been considering using job splitting and make to stock to allow us to split jobs more or less arbitrarily. During this process we stumbled across a process that might work for us. I am curious if anyone else does this or can advise about it.

The idea is that we split the job at night when the operator knows exactly how many parts are complete and ready to go to the next op. We often have instances where we need to get the next amount out to our heat treater so that we can get everything back in time to ship. They might expect 10 parts to go out to heat treat, but by the end of the night they have only 8 parts done. They have to go out, we can’t wait for the other 2 parts before we get started at heat treat.

So they split the job on the floor. They don’t tell epicor about it, and they send 8 parts ahead on the new (fake) job.

We wanted them to do this in epicor but they don’t know how many will be sent ahead. During the day, our purchaser makes a PO for the subcontract op that is going to be sent ahead. They expect 10, so they make up the PO for 10 parts. Since we are not splitting in epicor, the PO is just for the main job. The next day, the purchaser realizes they only finished 8 parts. She updated the PO to the correct quantity, and waits to receive it in.

Now if we want to split jobs in epicor, we would have to do it at night when the split actually happens. But night shift doesn’t use Epicor besides MES to log time and parts. So that pushes us back to splitting the job in the day ahead of time, just like we do with the POs. However, splitting a job is not as simple as making a new PO. When we split the job we want to split it accurately, which we can’t really do until the next day.

Now we are getting to the good part. We are considering splitting the job on the floor at night just like we always have. However, instead of splitting the quantity we want off, we split and leave the quantity we want on the main job. The main job paperwork, and all the parts that are ready get sent ahead to the next op.

The next day, when we know how many got split, we can split the job in Epicor properly. The split job then only contains the remaining parts on hold. In this way the main job can still have time and POs logged against it, while being split in epicor properly.

Am I making sense here? Is this a valid approach?

1 Like
2

Are you actually changing the total that you are making? Or are you just doing separate PO’s which end up being the total quantity you actually need? I’m trying to understand why you wouldn’t just issue the PO for the full amount required on the job and just receive in the quantity that ended up coming back. They are all eventually going to be done right?

3 Likes
3

Now there’s a common-sense approach I can get on board with! I will discuss this at our next meeting. Seems like the obvious answer. I know that some of our jobs (splits) might sit for months or more. Maybe our suppliers don’t like to keep POs open that long. I will find out!

We only change the total quantity on the individual PO. So, if it said 10, and we got 8, then we fix the PO for 8. Since we write the POs as they get split, we don’t ever change the original job production quantity.

4

I guess my question is more about the idea of a reverse job split. We assumed that when splitting a job, you split off the amount you want to move ahead. We want to do it slightly backwards, and split off the amount to stay behind, letting the main job move ahead. Is that a bad idea for any reason?

5

How about another novel approach:

  1. Lets say that your top part number is “TOP1”… it is what you are currently building.
  2. Create a new top part number called “TOP1A” and it contains all the work done in the first steps you describe… but this item would be setup like a KANBAN part.
  3. Part TOP1 would have TOP1A as a component… the first step in TOP1 would be the outside processing step.

Now… what does this do?

  1. You would have your master job for TOP1 that says to make 100 parts
  2. every night, the person working on TOP1A would do their work, and when done, would do a KANBAN COMPLETION of the 8 units of TOP1A that they finished.
  3. THEN you would SPLIT 8 pieces off the TOP1, and issue the 8 completed TOP1A to that job.
4 Likes
6

Oh Man Tim. KANBAN!? I don’t know anything about that. Hah! It sounds like a great approach. We will consider this as well, but without expertise like yours, we probably won’t get far.

7

well, step one… IN YOUR TEST ACCOUNT: Go into the Kanban Receipts program and try it out on a manufactured part… it is a beautiful little program that:

  1. asks you the part and quantity
  2. when you submit: it:
  • Automatically creates a JOB
  • Automatically issues all the material
  • Automatically charges all the labor
  • Automatically receives the finished part
  • Automatically closes the job

Note that for Kanban, it ALWAYS backflushes parts and labor, even if you don’t have things normally setup for backflushing. BUT since kanban is supposed to be considered for job types where the entire job can be made in a short (less than one day) period of time, this is often a great solution.

3 Likes
8

I am still looking for an answer to my original question about this idea of a sort of backwards job splitting process. We are considering the Kanban approach as well, but I want to know if any of you think this is a terrible idea to split a job, then send the main job ahead and hold the split.
Thanks!
Nate

9

I think the biggest problem you might have is communication of the change. Are you 100% paperless? If not, do you track down these changes with the paperwork on the floor? Is there any other planning outside of the system that’s done that would have to be adjusted?

Changing gears quickly is usually difficult for manufacturing facilities. Slow is smooth, smooth is fast. If you plan the split from the beginning of the process, and train people accordingly, and the transactions happen in the right order, I think it can be done.

1 Like
10

This has always been a favorite saying of mine. Initially it came from the rock climbing community, then I heard it used frequently in CQB training.

We are moving slow that’s for sure!
Thanks!

11

I got it from the movie “Shooter”

2 Likes
12

I don’t believe that will work with costing. Splitting jobs in Epicor is excruciatingly painful if you do not have all of the costs captured correctly. What you are suggesting sounds like your costs on the jobs will go sideways. May not be an issue for you, but definitely something to watch out for.

1 Like
13

We likely won’t end up going this route, I just had to know about the possibilities. Thanks everyone!

1 Like