Here's the difference. You're assumption is that the machine is generating
2 jobs "Simultaneously". For Laser, Flame Cut, Plasma Cut, etc type
machines you load a large plate of material on the machine and then load a
program that will cut multiple jobs from the same plate using nesting logic
to get the maximum number of parts from one plate. ( little parts tucked
into the holes around big parts - etc. ).
In this case you aren't exactly producing multiple jobs "At the same time"
... but they are so inter-woven that you have no way of starting and
stopping specific jobs. Hence the need to be able to start multiple jobs -
run for 4-10 hours and then when you hit stop - have the system break down
the time amongst the jobs in proportion to the original estimate.
For instance: We may take 1 order for 1 piece that is 8" by 8" PLUS 1 order
for 10 pieces that are 15" x 3" PLUS 1 order for 20 pieces that are 20" x
35" and irregular ... all 3 jobs might be nested out of plate of steel that
is 96" x 240". Should the order for 1 piece that is 8" x 8" be charged for
1/3 of the time that was used to burn the plate ?
This logic does not generally apply to lathes, mills, etc. where you tend to
run jobs in a serial mode one after another.
Using logic that split's the actual time in pro-portion to the original
estimate is far more accurate although it does make the assumption that if
it takes you 20% longer for the overall run then all jobs on the plate MUST
have been 20 % off on the original estimate which probably is NOT the case
but I do not know how you would make it any more accurate without doing
manual time cards.
Make sense ?
J. Rubin & Co.
From: Darren Mann [mailto:dmann@...
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 10:53 AM
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Labor Posting
I hope this isn't a blond day for me!
> You run 2 jobs at the same time and record 10 hours total.
> The original
> estimate was for job 1 to take 1 hour and job 2 to take 4
> hours. ( ie. your
> estimates weren't even close ) Actual time should be 2
> hours to job 1 and
> 8 hours to job 2.
I can not see the logic here. Perhaps your situation is different from ours.
If both jobs are running simultaneously, 10 hours TOTAL would equate to
machine run time of 5 hours, thus your estimate was for 1 hour and you took
5 hours, therefore the hours vantage would set is closer to actual of 5
hours than the 2 hours you say should be charged to the job.
Job 1 - 7:00 to 12:00 (5 hours) = 2.5 hours
Job 2 - 7:00 to 12:00 (5 hours) = 2.5 hours
Now, assuming you meant that both jobs ran for 10 hours, machine runtime
would be 10 hours each job and Vantage would charge 5 hours to both. Which
is better than you proposed 2/8 split. If you estimated 1 hour; something
is really wrong, but for the sake of argument I would rather charge 5 hours
on a 10 hour runtime than 2. By doing so you have placed more of the time
on the job that exceeded the projected time instead of covering up a huge
error on the estimate.
Job 1 - 7:00 to 4:00 (10 hours) = 5 hours
Job 2 - 7:00 to 4:00 (10 hours) = 5 hours
Does Vantage only split the time that the employee is clocked into both
Job 1 - 7:00 to 11:00 (4 hours) = 2 hours
Job 2 - 7:00 to 1:00 (6 hours) = 4 hours
If you hired someone to mow your yard and he brings a buddy to help, you pay
the guy $20 for mowing your yard. Both people mow the same amount of time.
How would they split the $20??
> 3) Split labor and burden proportionately according to
> actual qty produced.
> ( same basic logic as Option 2 )
> Note that NONE of these options are going to be perfectly
> accurate but in
> many cases options 2 and 3 would be far closer to the "Truth".
For this to be a viable solution, you would have to factor in the production
standard to allow for different machine rates and material feed rates.
Quantity alone is not a good determinant for labor calculations, too many
other factors affect it.
Since, both option 2 & 3 deal essentially with the same determinant; the
production rate. Estimated hours are calculated based on the standard rate
and run qty. If you merge the two options you propose to add you arrive at
the production rate. It is my opinion that only two possible options could
exist to split labor, splitting evenly or using the standard rate to apply a
proportional multiplier based on total runtime divided by total earned
Sorry to disagree with you Todd, but I think you are the right track.
Miller Products Co,
We no longer allow attachments to files. To access/share Report Files,
please go to the following link: http://www.egroups.com/files/vantage/
(Note: If this link does not work for you the first time you try it, go to
www.egroups.com, login and be sure to save your password, choose My Groups,
choose Vantage, then choose Files. If you save the password, the link above
will work the next time you try it.)