If you feel you were misled by your sales team, that is a different
issue. I still say that calling that function "Kanban Receipts" is
not misleading in any way. That screen can in fact be effectively
used as one part of a Kanban process. Your requirement for longer
term planning, and the way Vantage MRP supports it, is in my opinion
a positive, not a negative. It is a good example of why many small
and mid-size manufacurers cannot adopt lean in the same way as
Toyota. Toyota can use their muscle to go to their suppliers and
dictate a just-in-time relationship where everyting they need is
available on short notice. The material can then be "pulled" as
needed. Smaller firms in many cases cannot dictate that type of
relationship, or the nature of their product mix does not allow it,
so they have to place POs for long lead time items, sometimes long
before the firm orders are received from their customers. Some type
of planning function is required for that and MRP is how it is done
in Vantage. What is your alternative for long lead time purchased
items?
As far as Epicor being purchased, the typical situation in the ERP
industry after a buyout is the opposite of what you have described.
In most cases, the buying company wants to improve cash flow and
profits quickly, so they fire most of the developers and go
into "Maintenance Mode". If you want Vantage to stay as it is with
minimal future improvements, a buyout is the best way to get there.
Right now, Epicor is engaged in a very ambitious project to combine
all of their ERP products onto a common platform which is based on
Vantage 8/9 technology. My guess is that will limit their ability
to add new functions beyond what is needed for the consolidation, in
the near term, but will be a huge benefit to Vantage users in the
long term because the user base will be much larger, and the
development resources that can be focused on Vantage will be much
larger.
--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, Robert Brown <robertb_versa@...>
wrote:
TPS/Lean.
scripted sales process claims (of which Lean support was but one of
several 'hot button issues' swaying some key selection team members -
that proved far less true than claimed) that it very much 'swung
the vote' and won Epicor the final selection decision.
have created distrust in a relationship which now must succeed for
the next 5-10 years.
requirements ('pull').
possible product final configurations). These final assemblies are
produced from about 8,000 SKUs comprised complex machined, cast,
forged and electrical components (along with simple commercial
hardware & seals).
minimize inventory by choosing to hold long lead time (2-6 month)
inventory at only specific BOM levels that have the most common
features within each family.
finishing processes). This can be done in days/weeks versus months
for raw and semi-machined casting/forging lead times.
make to order assembly flow) and at top level (specific final
machined configurations) SKUs, we (and at other companies like ours -
as in my experience, our conditions are not particularly unique)
still need long range planning for very long lead time base
purchased SKUs (of which there are hundreds and hundreds - sourced
from vendors all over the world).
several primary variants of MRP that have gained acceptance over the
last several decades) provides.
between must be planned levels by MRP.
scheduling/maintenance activities, the levels are still
fundamentally MRP 'push' planned levels. The MRP created Unfirmed
orders are just never Firmed.
to buffer against known demand variation patterns and still allow
fulfillment of high customer service level targets) to lower and
lower SKU levels.
one of three:
tacitly implying that, since it still hasn't been fulfilled yet,
don't expect it to be any time soon).
understands manufacturing, will see the agressively growing user
installations as a ready to serve broad customer base - and utilize
the modern, increasingly .Net compliant technology program base as a
good fit for its own existing applications/technologies and
expertise.
per share financial results) and aggressively 'going .Net' (instead
of less emphasis on underlying .Net conversion and more on increased
manufacturing functionality) , it seems they are doing everything
they can to make themselves a desireable aquisition target
(...perhaps for that company in Redmond - now that the US Justice
Department seems satisfied enough that they have exacted their pound
of flesh).
issue. I still say that calling that function "Kanban Receipts" is
not misleading in any way. That screen can in fact be effectively
used as one part of a Kanban process. Your requirement for longer
term planning, and the way Vantage MRP supports it, is in my opinion
a positive, not a negative. It is a good example of why many small
and mid-size manufacurers cannot adopt lean in the same way as
Toyota. Toyota can use their muscle to go to their suppliers and
dictate a just-in-time relationship where everyting they need is
available on short notice. The material can then be "pulled" as
needed. Smaller firms in many cases cannot dictate that type of
relationship, or the nature of their product mix does not allow it,
so they have to place POs for long lead time items, sometimes long
before the firm orders are received from their customers. Some type
of planning function is required for that and MRP is how it is done
in Vantage. What is your alternative for long lead time purchased
items?
As far as Epicor being purchased, the typical situation in the ERP
industry after a buyout is the opposite of what you have described.
In most cases, the buying company wants to improve cash flow and
profits quickly, so they fire most of the developers and go
into "Maintenance Mode". If you want Vantage to stay as it is with
minimal future improvements, a buyout is the best way to get there.
Right now, Epicor is engaged in a very ambitious project to combine
all of their ERP products onto a common platform which is based on
Vantage 8/9 technology. My guess is that will limit their ability
to add new functions beyond what is needed for the consolidation, in
the near term, but will be a huge benefit to Vantage users in the
long term because the user base will be much larger, and the
development resources that can be focused on Vantage will be much
larger.
--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, Robert Brown <robertb_versa@...>
wrote:
>KanBan?
> Harsh? Maybe.
>
> How is a function called "KanBan Receipts" NOT Epicor calling it
>promoting it is one of several Vantage capabilities that support
> A year ago, Epicor's sales team certainly had no qualms
TPS/Lean.
>was - but nough people on our team were duped by the slick Epicor
> Many on our ERP selection team recognized it for what it really
scripted sales process claims (of which Lean support was but one of
several 'hot button issues' swaying some key selection team members -
that proved far less true than claimed) that it very much 'swung
the vote' and won Epicor the final selection decision.
>winning sales. I do have a problem when the methods used to do so
> I have no problem with a sales team fulfilling their roles and
have created distrust in a relationship which now must succeed for
the next 5-10 years.
>production activity triggered by actual independent demand
> Yes: The KanBan Receipts function can be used to simply report
requirements ('pull').
>products is expected in days (of nearly an infinite number of
> In our markets, customer order fulfillment of assemble to order
possible product final configurations). These final assemblies are
produced from about 8,000 SKUs comprised complex machined, cast,
forged and electrical components (along with simple commercial
hardware & seals).
>core component design families. BOMs are several levels deep to
> Most of our SKUs are themselves variations on several hundred
minimize inventory by choosing to hold long lead time (2-6 month)
inventory at only specific BOM levels that have the most common
features within each family.
>machining of the final differentiating features (and post machining
> Final component production BOM/SKU levels are typically just
finishing processes). This can be done in days/weeks versus months
for raw and semi-machined casting/forging lead times.
>common known non-stock sub-assembly levels (true kan-bans to support
> In an environment like this, even when using KanBan Receipt at
make to order assembly flow) and at top level (specific final
machined configurations) SKUs, we (and at other companies like ours -
as in my experience, our conditions are not particularly unique)
still need long range planning for very long lead time base
purchased SKUs (of which there are hundreds and hundreds - sourced
from vendors all over the world).
>requires the long range planning assistance that only MRP (or
> To manage those long lead time supply chains well, that still
several primary variants of MRP that have gained acceptance over the
last several decades) provides.
>independent demand level (customer demand level), the BOM levels in
> For MRP to function several BOM levels deep below the
between must be planned levels by MRP.
>used to minimize non-value added Job creation &
> Therefore, just because a function like "KanBan Receipts" is
scheduling/maintenance activities, the levels are still
fundamentally MRP 'push' planned levels. The MRP created Unfirmed
orders are just never Firmed.
>stock level targets (albeit small levels of inventory - just enough
> They are simply vehicles to pass planned demand & inventory
to buffer against known demand variation patterns and still allow
fulfillment of high customer service level targets) to lower and
lower SKU levels.
>opportunity. However, the general responses are either (simply put)
> But it is still 'push'.
>
> As for communicating what we want to Vantage: Yes - and at every
one of three:
>clue.)
> 1. Why would you want that? (In other words, they don't have a
> 2. From Epicor/Vantage implementation consultants andapplications specialists: That is a common request (politely and
tacitly implying that, since it still hasn't been fulfilled yet,
don't expect it to be any time soon).
> 3. Would you like a Customization quote on that from ourprogramming group?
>becomes an attractive target for aquisition by a company that
> I stand by my original email statement where I hope Vantage
understands manufacturing, will see the agressively growing user
installations as a ready to serve broad customer base - and utilize
the modern, increasingly .Net compliant technology program base as a
good fit for its own existing applications/technologies and
expertise.
>expanding/growing its user base (at the cost of near term earnings
> With Epicor's clear dual emphasis on agressively
per share financial results) and aggressively 'going .Net' (instead
of less emphasis on underlying .Net conversion and more on increased
manufacturing functionality) , it seems they are doing everything
they can to make themselves a desireable aquisition target
(...perhaps for that company in Redmond - now that the US Justice
Department seems satisfied enough that they have exacted their pound
of flesh).
>the process
>
>
>
> Dave Thomas <dthomas@...> wrote:
> Your comments seem harsh. I don't believe Epicor calls
> you describe "Kanban". The "Kanban Receipts" function in Vantageis
> simply a way of recording production, with the associated materialIt
> and labor consumption, without having to create a job in advance.
> could be used as part of a true kanban process, or in other ways.the
> I don't see how that is "deception". I also don't see how that is
> necessarily a "push" system. If the production demand is being
> driven by the downstream process, not the planning functions of
> system, that would be "pull" wouldn't it?receipt
>
> How do you want it to work? Have you ever communicated that to
> Epicor?
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, Robert Brown <robertb_versa@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Bravo John.
> >
> > It is outright deception for Epicor to call their automated job
> creation, material issue, std labor backflush and automated
> process application "Kan-ban". It is simply a min o/h triggeredtime
> inventory replenishment system for a single location (equally
> deceptively called "bin") with automation to hide the ugly details
> from the users.
> >
> > Push is still push and Vantage's so called "Kan-Ban" IS push
> (not a Lean pull system).
> >
> > One caveat to your excellent reply: Kan-ban is not necessarily
> exclusively 2-bin based. Complex mixed mode Lean production cells
> responsible for producing an array of similar parts or assemblies
> (all with different Takt times) may result in the highest Takt
> part/assembly best being managed with more than a simple 2 bincell
> system to insure all possible parts/assemblies produced in the
> can be produced within an acceptable period of time to meetcustomer
> service goals.kanban.
> >
> > Similarly, material handling constraints can affect the decision
> on the number of bins to use for a part/assembly managed by
> Bins may need to be sized so they aren't too heavy or large toEpicor
> handle with minimal material handling equipment.
> >
> > Vantage's mechanism of using an automated Job (creation,
> material issue, labor backflush & receipt) is a typical mechanism
> used by all systems claiming to be "lean" systems - but until
> provides the built in analysis tools for determining if ato
> part/assembly even requires a kan-ban (not needed if parts kan be
> produced on the fly "In Line Flow" as needed to meet Takt) - and
> assist in determining kan-ban sizing (qty/bin & number of bins) ifto
> Kan-ban buffers are needed, a Job is still a Job.
> >
> > The fact that they have not enabled their 'kan-ban' Job process
> to allow reporting of scrap (or any quality problem issues
> experienced during production) is a completely missed opportunity
> easily collect critical information necessary to continuouslyshow
> improve the product and the process to eliminate waste.
> >
> > Perhaps someday someone at Epicor will wake up and realize they
> have some pieces already in place to truly support Lean (with some
> tweaking)...
> >
> > But then again, this is a company that thinks "APS" is MRP (and
> can be of any benefit only using current as-scheduled supply date
> data for internal production & not also vendor in-process and in-
> transit 'real enough' time updated data).
> >
> > Hopefully, v9 will be a compelling enough technical platform
> (stable and flexible) that a company who understands manufacturing
> will acquire the product out and develop it to its true potential.
> The 'used car salesmen' Marketing types apparently driving the
> at Epicor right now aren't capable of it.A
> >
> >
> >
> > John Sage <list@> wrote:
> > Mike McGee wrote:
> > >
> > > Our Kanban quantities are no less
> > > than a one month supply of the item.
> >
> > If this is the case, then your kanban may be as wasteful as MRP.
> trueA,
> > kanban systems uses two bins. Each kanban bin should be sized
> > identically to reflect the replenishment cycle time. For example:
> >
> > Dept B uses 75 of widget XYZ per day. Widget XYZ is made by Dept
> > which makes the widget once per week (per their level-loadplan).
> The(machine
> > kanban bin size should be 5 X 75, or 375 widgets. When one bin is
> > emptied, the kanban card is delivered to Dept A, and Dept B will
> begin
> > consuming the second bin.
> >
> > However this leaves no protection from internal variation
> down,hasn't
> > absent operators, raw material stock-out, etc.). Some companies
> use 1.5
> > times replenishment cycle as the kanban bin size, so the "safer"
> bin
> > size for Widget XYZ might be 8 X 75, or 600 widgets. Much less
> costly
> > than 22 X 75 or 1650 widgets - inventory on the shelf represents
> cash
> > spent on materials and labor.
> >
> > But the real question is: Why is Widget XYZ on a kanban? Why
> > the output of Dept A been linked directly to Dept B? There mayvery
> > well be good reasons, but the objective of any lean plant ispull,
> notnot
> > batch. Kanbanning sub-assemblies should only be done when it's
> > possible to flow them.it
> >
> > Since Epicor really doesn't understand what a kanban is or how
> shouldThe
> > work, you'll never run lean using Vantage's tools. Vantage is
> > job-ticket, batch & queue oriented. The exact opposite of lean.
> > first lean principle: Make exactly what the customer wants, whenhe
> > wants it, in the quantity he wants. Anything else is cash downthe
> drain.story.
> >
> > john
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your
> pocket: mail, news, photos & more.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your
> Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>