Splitting burden - Vantage 5.2

Yahoo Archive
1
I just had a conversation with a former member of this group (CodaBears)
about this the other day. He stated that Epicor inadvertently solved
this problem that has been plaguing them for many years through the
development of some lean software custom developed for a large customer
now incorporated in 9.5. I am not sure of the details. However, from
what I understand this was brought out at perspectives.



I know this doesn't help your 5.2 issue, but your request triggered this
thought from me.



Bruce B.



From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Tim Goertz
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 8:37 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Splitting burden - Vantage 5.2





We consistently have operators running multiple laser machines (using
Sigmanest software) and often running multiple parts on the same machine
at the same time . Our work centers are currently set to Split Burden
and we collect labor through the Vantage Data Collection module. Our
problem is getting the cost applied to the jobs correctly in these
scenarios.


* If an operator runs one piece of equipment and only one part,
the labor and burden are equal and correct.
*
If an operator runs two pieces of equipment and one part on each
machine, each job gets split labor and full burden. This is correct as
long as one machine doesn't sit idle while the operator deals with the
other piece of equipment. If this occurs, the machine that sits idle is
getting charged burden while it is idle and gets charge 1/2 labor while
it is idle.
*
If an operator runs one piece of equipment with multiple parts
on a sheet and clocks into all jobs on the sheet, his labor is split
among the jobs regardless of the actual time spent cutting the
individual parts. Small parts get over charged and large parts get
under charged. Each job gets full burden even though only one piece of
equipment is being used. We would log 16 hours of burden on one piece
of equipment for 8 hours if we ran a 2 piece nest for 8 hours.
*
Sometimes in in the case above, the operator only clocks into
one job and then clocks in / out of the other job(s) to record the parts
produced. In this case, the job he clocked into has excess labor and
burden because the other parts were produced along with this part. The
other parts get "no" burden or labor cost.
*
If the operator is running two pieces of equipment and they are
running multiple part nests, it is a real mess.

If anyone else out there is dealing with this please let me know how you
are doing it. Thanks.



Tim Goertz


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2
We consistently have operators running multiple laser machines (using
Sigmanest software) and often running multiple parts on the same machine
at the same time . Our work centers are currently set to Split Burden
and we collect labor through the Vantage Data Collection module. Our
problem is getting the cost applied to the jobs correctly in these
scenarios.


* If an operator runs one piece of equipment and only one part,
the labor and burden are equal and correct.
*
If an operator runs two pieces of equipment and one part on each
machine, each job gets split labor and full burden. This is correct as
long as one machine doesn't sit idle while the operator deals with the
other piece of equipment. If this occurs, the machine that sits idle is
getting charged burden while it is idle and gets charge 1/2 labor while
it is idle.
*
If an operator runs one piece of equipment with multiple parts
on a sheet and clocks into all jobs on the sheet, his labor is split
among the jobs regardless of the actual time spent cutting the
individual parts. Small parts get over charged and large parts get
under charged. Each job gets full burden even though only one piece of
equipment is being used. We would log 16 hours of burden on one piece
of equipment for 8 hours if we ran a 2 piece nest for 8 hours.
*
Sometimes in in the case above, the operator only clocks into
one job and then clocks in / out of the other job(s) to record the parts
produced. In this case, the job he clocked into has excess labor and
burden because the other parts were produced along with this part. The
other parts get "no" burden or labor cost.
*
If the operator is running two pieces of equipment and they are
running multiple part nests, it is a real mess.

If anyone else out there is dealing with this please let me know how you
are doing it. Thanks.




Tim Goertz



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]