Manufacturing Best Practices

Yahoo Archive
1
Rob;

Is it easily identifiable which jobs require full labor tracking and which jobs do not?

We are evaluating our processes and Labor Reporting seams to be a very time consuming process. We would like to explore minimizing the about of time Shop Employees are in the system VS performing production.

Any additional suggestions you could provide would br greatly appreciated.

Thanks
Patty Buechler

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, Robert Brown <robertb_versa@...> wrote:
>
>
> 30-40 jobs per employee a day? Sounds about like our single location assembly area.
>
> Just how 'accurate' do you think any Start/End Activity data you're recording really is?
>
> People figure out a way to batch report when faced with heavy handed reporting requirements. The data is often useless as a result.
>
> At the very least I'd suggest no more than 1st and last OP Qty type reporting. (Any 'middle' OPs would be set to Backflush type.) This would at least allow a single entry & cut down on non-value added transaction entry time cost.
>
> We back-flush all but LAST OP with is Qty reporting. Our total assy time work content is typically 3-8 minutes per unit & we want them building quality product (not using a heavy handed set up ERP system).
>
> Opposite scenario: Our CNC parts fabrication shop (where jobs may exist in process for a month as they wind through 5-20 OPs) - Here we DO use Time & Qty reporting type labor entry.
>
>
> Think of you high flow areas... Backflushing labor "standards" isn't useless. You can cum those earned hrs and compare to actual paid. That data can then be used to improve the accuracy of your standards and/or detect poor performing employees (as well as stars).
>
> Heck, we are considering ending use of make direct jobs entirely and setting everything up for single post production kanban receipts reporting (and then shipping from the receipt whse bin).
>
> Don't be so sure the presence of a tight system driven reporting requirement process isn't distorting the results on such high velocity jobs.
>
> "The presence of the observer changes that which is observed".... Isn't that some famous quantum physics truism?
>
> It sure applies to high velocity manufacturing.
>
> Go Lean (and report less)...
>
> My 2 cents (for what it's worth).
>
> Rob Brown
>
> --- On Tue, 2/10/09, bonner.nathan <bonner.n@...> wrote:
> From: bonner.nathan <bonner.n@...>
> Subject: [Vantage] Manufacturing Best Practices
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2009, 11:56 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We are in need of some help in identifying best practices for
>
> production execution in Vantage around short-run small-volume Sales
>
> Orders which require Make-Direct / Make-to-Order fulfillment.
>
>
>
> Currently we are relying on one Job per Sales Order / Line / Release
>
> to meet these requirements. The most significant drawbacks to this
>
> approach are the large number of MES Start/End Production
>
> transactions and the large number of Jobs to manage and close.
>
>
>
> We do not want to loose sight of our actual production cost so we are
>
> a little leery of going to a "Back Flush" or "Use Estimates for
>
> Actual" model. But we recognize the need to reduce the number of
>
> transactions required to meet the demands of our Sales Order
>
> fulfilled through manufacturing. Our current process is as follows:
>
>
>
> Quote â€" Sales Order â€" Order Job Wizard â€" Issue Material â€" Start
>
> Production (First Operation) â€" End Production (First Operation) â€"
>
> Return Material â€" Customer Shipment â€" Invoicing & Job Closing
>
>
>
> Some of our eighteen locations are managing upwards of 30 â€" 40 Jobs
>
> per Shop Employee per day.
>
2
We are in need of some help in identifying best practices for
production execution in Vantage around short-run small-volume Sales
Orders which require Make-Direct / Make-to-Order fulfillment.

Currently we are relying on one Job per Sales Order / Line / Release
to meet these requirements. The most significant drawbacks to this
approach are the large number of MES Start/End Production
transactions and the large number of Jobs to manage and close.

We do not want to loose sight of our actual production cost so we are
a little leery of going to a "Back Flush" or "Use Estimates for
Actual" model. But we recognize the need to reduce the number of
transactions required to meet the demands of our Sales Order
fulfilled through manufacturing. Our current process is as follows:

Quote – Sales Order – Order Job Wizard – Issue Material – Start
Production (First Operation) – End Production (First Operation) –
Return Material – Customer Shipment – Invoicing & Job Closing

Some of our eighteen locations are managing upwards of 30 – 40 Jobs
per Shop Employee per day.
3
30-40 jobs per employee a day? Sounds about like our single location assembly area.

Just how 'accurate' do you think any Start/End Activity data you're recording really is?

People figure out a way to batch report when faced with heavy handed reporting requirements. The data is often useless as a result.

At the very least I'd suggest no more than 1st and last OP Qty type reporting. (Any 'middle' OPs would be set to Backflush type.) This would at least allow a single entry & cut down on non-value added transaction entry time cost.

We back-flush all but LAST OP with is Qty reporting. Our total assy time work content is typically 3-8 minutes per unit & we want them building quality product (not using a heavy handed set up ERP system).

Opposite scenario: Our CNC parts fabrication shop (where jobs may exist in process for a month as they wind through 5-20 OPs) - Here we DO use Time & Qty reporting type labor entry.


Think of you high flow areas... Backflushing labor "standards" isn't useless. You can cum those earned hrs and compare to actual paid. That data can then be used to improve the accuracy of your standards and/or detect poor performing employees (as well as stars).

Heck, we are considering ending use of make direct jobs entirely and setting everything up for single post production kanban receipts reporting (and then shipping from the receipt whse bin).

Don't be so sure the presence of a tight system driven reporting requirement process isn't distorting the results on such high velocity jobs.

"The presence of the observer changes that which is observed".... Isn't that some famous quantum physics truism?

It sure applies to high velocity manufacturing.

Go Lean (and report less)...

My 2 cents (for what it's worth).

Rob Brown

--- On Tue, 2/10/09, bonner.nathan <bonner.n@...> wrote:
From: bonner.nathan <bonner.n@...>
Subject: [Vantage] Manufacturing Best Practices
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2009, 11:56 AM












We are in need of some help in identifying best practices for

production execution in Vantage around short-run small-volume Sales

Orders which require Make-Direct / Make-to-Order fulfillment.



Currently we are relying on one Job per Sales Order / Line / Release

to meet these requirements. The most significant drawbacks to this

approach are the large number of MES Start/End Production

transactions and the large number of Jobs to manage and close.



We do not want to loose sight of our actual production cost so we are

a little leery of going to a "Back Flush" or "Use Estimates for

Actual" model. But we recognize the need to reduce the number of

transactions required to meet the demands of our Sales Order

fulfilled through manufacturing. Our current process is as follows:



Quote – Sales Order – Order Job Wizard – Issue Material – Start

Production (First Operation) – End Production (First Operation) –

Return Material – Customer Shipment – Invoicing & Job Closing



Some of our eighteen locations are managing upwards of 30 – 40 Jobs

per Shop Employee per day.
4
Nathan, we are running close to 1000 jobs per month and are doing it through a mix of backflush materials and issue materials. In our case labor is backflushed for the very reason you stated which is the amount of jobs being released. I understand not wanting to lose acutal costs but I think one question would be with that many to report against who would go through all of those and try to reconcile labor variances, accurate reporting, etc. In other words is it better to have more accuracy on material costs while allowing standard� labor costs to help you make more informed pricing/cost decisions? If you are concerned about labor costs you could routinely do an audit of jobs for certain product groups/part classed to make sure your standards are correct and not worry about all the labor transactions

--- On Tue, 2/10/09, bonner.nathan <bonner.n@...> wrote:

From: bonner.nathan <bonner.n@...>
Subject: [Vantage] Manufacturing Best Practices
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2009, 11:56 AM






We are in need of some help in identifying best practices for
production execution in Vantage around short-run small-volume Sales
Orders which require Make-Direct / Make-to-Order fulfillment.

Currently we are relying on one Job per Sales Order / Line / Release
to meet these requirements. The most significant drawbacks to this
approach are the large number of MES Start/End Production
transactions and the large number of Jobs to manage and close.

We do not want to loose sight of our actual production cost so we are
a little leery of going to a "Back Flush" or "Use Estimates for
Actual" model. But we recognize the need to reduce the number of
transactions required to meet the demands of our Sales Order
fulfilled through manufacturing. Our current process is as follows:

Quote � Sales Order � Order Job Wizard � Issue Material � Start
Production (First Operation) � End Production (First Operation) �
Return Material � Customer Shipment � Invoicing & Job Closing

Some of our eighteen locations are managing upwards of 30 � 40 Jobs
per Shop Employee per day.



















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
5
Bravo Mark!

We process 4000-4500 jobs per month in our assembly area and std labor (and material backflushing where part demand makes it worthy of resource bin point of use space) is the way to go.

Don't down yourself in variance details... Use the big gross daily/weeklu numbers to target audits that will reveal opportunities to improve the process (and make actual meet standard) or revise your standards to reality.

(GO LEAN!)

Rob


--- On Wed, 2/11/09, Mark Wagner <mjfw2003@...> wrote:

> From: Mark Wagner <mjfw2003@...>
> Subject: Re: [Vantage] Manufacturing Best Practices
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2009, 8:50 AM
> Nathan, we are running close to 1000 jobs per month and are
> doing it through a mix of backflush materials and issue
> materials. In our case labor is backflushed for the very
> reason you stated which is the amount of jobs being
> released. I understand not wanting to lose acutal costs but
> I think one question would be with that many to report
> against who would go through all of those and try to
> reconcile labor variances, accurate reporting, etc. In other
> words is it better to have more accuracy on material costs
> while allowing standard labor costs to help you make more
> informed pricing/cost decisions? If you are concerned about
> labor costs you could routinely do an audit of jobs for
> certain product groups/part classed to make sure your
> standards are correct and not worry about all the labor
> transactions
>
> --- On Tue, 2/10/09, bonner.nathan
> <bonner.n@...> wrote:
>
> From: bonner.nathan <bonner.n@...>
> Subject: [Vantage] Manufacturing Best Practices
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2009, 11:56 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We are in need of some help in identifying best practices
> for
> production execution in Vantage around short-run
> small-volume Sales
> Orders which require Make-Direct / Make-to-Order
> fulfillment.
>
> Currently we are relying on one Job per Sales Order / Line
> / Release
> to meet these requirements. The most significant drawbacks
> to this
> approach are the large number of MES Start/End Production
> transactions and the large number of Jobs to manage and
> close.
>
> We do not want to loose sight of our actual production cost
> so we are
> a little leery of going to a "Back Flush" or
> "Use Estimates for
> Actual" model. But we recognize the need to reduce the
> number of
> transactions required to meet the demands of our Sales
> Order
> fulfilled through manufacturing. Our current process is as
> follows:
>
> Quote – Sales Order – Order Job Wizard – Issue
> Material – Start
> Production (First Operation) – End Production (First
> Operation) –
> Return Material – Customer Shipment – Invoicing &
> Job Closing
>
> Some of our eighteen locations are managing upwards of 30
> – 40 Jobs
> per Shop Employee per day.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Useful links for the Yahoo!Groups Vantage Board are: (
> Note: You must have already linked your email address to a
> yahoo id to enable access. )
> (1) To access the Files Section of our Yahoo!Group for
> Report Builder and Crystal Reports and other
> 'goodies', please goto:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/.
> (2) To search through old msg's goto:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/messages
> (3) To view links to Vendors that provide Vantage services
> goto: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/linksYahoo!
> Groups Links
>
>
>