Hi all, we have noticed that some assembly costs were appearing significantly lower than expectation. After some investigation I realized this part assembly had a defined resource added in the BOO. This apparently made the costing come in way low and seems like when a resource is added it considers the number of resources defined in the resource group.
We do not utilize scheduling and there is a lot of bad data in the maintenance modules for operations, resource groups, and resources. We cleaned it up a little bit so at least the operations have the proper resource group defaulted.
What I am curious about it why defining a resource makes the costing method consider the number of resources in the resource group. I would have expected not defining a resource should consider all resources in the group. For instance, the assembly in question had operation Weld, resource group Welding, and resource welder. The weld resource group has 20 resources. When the assembly was costed with the resource assigned, the labor and burden was basically 20x lower than expected. When I removed the resource, it increased by 20x indicating it was no longer factoring the number of resources.
To be honest, I am just an ME who has done a lot of work trying to get the BOO’s and BOM’s straightened out with all the bad data we have in our system. Main priority was trying to get inventory backflushing correctly and getting proper part costs. We eventually want to get to scheduling but are nowhere close to that. I guess my question on the matter is why does adding a specific resource in the BOO trigger the number of resources to be factored in costing? A follow up question would be are we setting the methods up correctly to only define operation and resource group if all we’re looking for is inventory and cost control? We do utilize the resource group when using MES work queue to complete operations.
Thanks for the reply. It looks like we have the “use resource group values” checkbox checked for all resources in the group.
Another thing I noticed is some of our resources have a “resource type” defined, and some do not. In my example, the resource selected in the BOO was welder. In resource group maintenance that is actually a resource type. The actual resource belonging to that resource type is labeled “weld station 1”. No other resources in the group are affiliated with that resource type. I wonder if it’s the resource type that is creating the issue?
Very limited knowledge of this subject but if I told you we use a “standard costing method” would that make sense? That’s the term I hear our finance group saying quite a bit.
What are the values on the Resource Group for Scheduling Blocks and Split Operations? Same question for that Operation on the BOO, what value is in the Scheduling Blocks?
Ok. Not 100% sure, but my guess is that it has to do with the Split Operations flag and the Scheduling Blocks. From Help:
Used for scheduling. If YES then a single operation in this Resoure Group can be split across multiple Resources.
Number of Resources that one operation runs on at a time within this Resource Group. This affects how much of the total daily Resource Group capacity is used up per operation. If Resource Group has 4 Resource, 8 hour a day, and SchMachine = 2. An operation will schedule up to 16 hours per day. This is used as a default to the JobOper.Machines field.
I know you said that you do not use scheduling, but scheduling parameters are considered for costing. When you have an operation that has an RG and R as the scheduling resources, it will calculate the cost based off of the R, not the RG. So, in this instance, it calculated the Labor and Burden using only 1 R in the RG. When you removed the R, it calculates the Labor and Burden across all resources since you have Split Operations as True and Scheduling Blocks as 1. My theory is that you told the system it could split the operation over multiple resources but the operation can only run on one resource per the Scheduling Blocks. So I think it is calculating the estimate off of multiplying the estimated setup and labor by 20 instead of 1.
This is just a guess. I would set the Scheduling Blocks to 20 and see what the estimate does. Then I would set it back to 1 and turn off the Split Operations and see what the estimate is.
