Fantastic explanation on SBs
Anyone used these with capability? so that the same operation is then split over capable resources…
I cant weigh up if to use scheduling blocks or lots & multiples, or do they work in conjunction with each other… and then that’s another rabbit hole get down
Beat me up please everyone haha 
@Mitch_B , I split your post into a new topic.
Can you provide more detail of your situation so we can help?
Hi John,
I understand the logic around lots and multiples and capping our jobs with a max lot, and we intended to use this as part of our “control” over what our automated kit produces to keep it efficient but without blocking out huge amount of hours in the schedules allowing us to be more dynamic all through the job structure.
But, we had an internal conversation and thought about potentially using scheduling blocks to split out min lot and we control it that way instead of max lots, and let the “real demand” drive the quantities.
So we are using capability in our methods, its one of the most impressive features we have seen so far! but, if we are to use scheduling blocks (where we have stock orders around our MTO/Make Direct orders/parts) if there are capable resources available for the 2nd block, will it use them capable resources, or keep it on the same resource as the previous block?
We are using MES, and EKWW so got to consider moving material around to these operations, also getting job drawings and potentially travellers to the operators too, we are also using the get request feature, so having the same operation split, with the same opcode and opseq number.. it’s understanding if others have any experience with this, and moving material around to match split operations.
Also with split operations, does it consider this in your POs and their demands? as if the SBs have split operations over 5 days (not sure if it would do this) but will this impact the POs too, where lead times could be 1/2 days.
Note from between writing my intial comment to this: We wanted to control the jobs at the cutting/automated resources level, so we maximise, but I do think our lot sizes best be at the forming operation after our automated operation, so we form in 25’s but cut in 100’s, if we set the lot sizes at the finished formed parts, we will get 4 cutting jobs, that we could just “batch operation” on, and then do it that way instead of handling the data in methods and part masters
Im not 100% sure if ive explained myself right, im so wrapped up in it, hard to see the wood for the trees sometimes!
Thanks for being patient with me 
Awesome response, very helpful.
I’m assuming that you are working sheet metal? Also assuming that you get multi-release orders? And you are trying to balance lot sizing with “using” the system?
Let me know as that will craft my response.
Hi John,
We work in Hollow Section, Sheet, Wood, Rubber… oh its a mix
When you talk releases, presumably Sales Orders? We are planning on Releases on Sales Orders.
With regards to jobs, we are using Pull as Assembly, and we are using it with the logic of when we need 100 of the item we are lot sizing, it’ll produced downwards 100 of what we need, and then batch the operations on our automated kit
So we may make 100 finished items, but only form them in 25s, so we expect 4 jobs of 25 on the former, and 4 jobs of 25 on our flatbed laser, but use batching operations to combine the 25 on the laser, to 100..
I’m thinking though, we could lot size all our parts, and use scheduling blocks to breakdown the large jobs (its balancing that efficiency of cutting with tonnes of wip moving to bottle necks), with the logic of pull as assembly where possible to help with “we cut this for that” and get requests on material being more just in time vs to stock then pull. I know we will over produce, but this is where we know lot sizes will do this, and the pull as assembly logic works for pulling them in from stock & producing the difference.
Its a serious amount of moving parts, but really simply put, breaking things up using scheduling blocks or lot sizing… preference/opinion really.
Sorry not got back sooner, im in the world of production yield recalcs (testing) to see if this works for us to fill gaps too
If there is a button, im using it… got get the moneys worth out the software HAHA!!
If you are just trying to control the size of the Jobs, lots is what you want to use.
You would use Scheduling Blocks if you wanted to have 2 lasers or brakes to work on the job at the same time.
At my old company, I tried really hard to get them to make subassemblies to inventory. And by subassemblies, I mean any part that had an operation performed that was not the finished good. That went over like a fart in church!
The CEO/President literally spent his whole time managing down to releases and complained that the system could not provide him what he needed. I mentioned that they were not using the system in a way for it to help them.
They entered an order with 1 line and 10 releases on that line. They would create 1 job for the complete quantity of the line. What that does is confuse MRP & Scheduling. A job can only have 1 Due Date, so when you add every release to a single job, it defaults to the Ship By of the first release. Now you have lost all sight of the releases and when quantity will be available for them. These were large jobs too, a couple thousand pieces sometimes. They would do what you are saying, get the job through the laser for the complete quantity and then push ahead only some. The lasered pieces stayed in WIP on the floor. They had all sorts of issues with paperwork and even finding the in process parts. It was a one man show who tried to orchestrate everything with a manual, binder full of paper method.
I had suggested that they create lot sizes and Plan As Assemblies. In your instance, I would create the lasered part with it’s own method. One operation, laser part. I would also set the lot size to 100. That way, every time there is demand for the part, it will create a job for 100 pieces. I would set that as a Plan As in the next level method. You would also want to use Multi-Job in this instance. When you enter the order for the finished good, let’s say the order is for 200 with 8 releases of 25. The next is assuming a short manufacturing time where you could complete all 200 in a week. MRP will run and see the demand for the finished good and create a job for 25 pieces. It will also see the Plan As laser part and create a separate job for 100 pieces (because of the lot size). Since you have multi-job turned on, it will have the demand on the 100 pieces be split 25 to the parent job and 75 to stock. When the next release comes into the manufacturing lead time window, the system will create a job for 25 and pull the lower level from inventory. Finish off the 25 and ship. This way, you are allowing the system to control the flow instead of a person.
Anyways, I got up on my soap box! I don’t think you want to use scheduling blocks unless you are really running these through multiple machines at the same time.
Let me know if you have any questions.
John I love a response from you
(I bet that’s what he says to all the boys 
)
Annnnnnnnyway,
We (as part of implementation) have not across our 35k manufactured items analysed the methods to the point of being able select “pull and plan” per method, we are Pull everything, to get us live, and review after, as we had a tonne of issues with the link between the plan as assembly jobs (move the cutting job cause of “issues” it didn’t move forming jobs) where as with the pull as assembly logic we could use “move all jobs” and it shifted the lot… im happy to take some steering there
I absolutely love the idea of what you are saying with regards to the cut 100, and pull to the 25 job… its just we don’t have that part number to stock the 100, and I too had the same conversation about a part number for every sub assembly (be it cut flat or 1 hole drilled into a tube) so that we could, use that logic you’re saying with lots and multiples…
However, we are not using the part numbers logic, we are using operations and hoping to force the lot sizes to all our parts, and then let the system split out the jobs for us that way… it has made me think as im typing this now… pull as assembly where lot sizes are different from level to the next… will that break the pull logic… not forcing in the lot sizes… at what point do i start crying
Sounds like you are moving forward! Yes, creating all of those new part numbers would not be fun. When you are ready, you could take a single final assembly and break it out to see how it works. But it sounds like you got some good ideas and are trying them out.
Now I see why you are asking about Scheduling Blocks. Basically, what you are trying to do is get lot sizes for operations, very tricky. 
I will have to think about if that could be accomplished. I have an idea, but not sure. I also think you are starting to move into the territory of whatever process gets crafted will be more work than it is worth. Not sure, but it feels like we are getting close.