× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.


  • Subject: RE: costing vs. capacity
  • From: Beth Norris <BNorris@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 12:49:52 -0500

Julie, 

Thanks for the response!  We originally set everything up to work as you
described which works great for capacity planning.

Unfortunately, we have discovered that the # of operators in the routing is
used for capacity only.  It does not effect the cost roll-up, therefore lies
our problem.    Accounting is not happy with this set-up...and they are the
ones asking us to set up more than one work center so that the labor rates
can be set based on the number of people. 

Do you know another way to set up multiple labor rates for the same work
center based on item number?

Thanks,
Beth




-----Original Message-----
From: JClancy@iworksoftware.com [mailto:JClancy@iworksoftware.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 9:52 AM
To: BPCS-L@midrange.com
Subject: Re: costing vs. capacity



Beth,

The routing is the appropriate place to express the number of operators an
Item needs to be built, not the work center. The work center rate is set up
as the rate per hour per person.

In the routing you would define the total run hours needed, based on your
basis code and the number of operators for that item.  Capacity then
divides the number of hours by the number of operators to determine the
amount of capacity hours that are required (elapsed clock time).  The cost
roll up would use the 20 hours of labor.

For example,  the routing has 20 hours per 10,000 pieces and 2 operators.
The capacity generation would show a load of 10 run hours for every 10000
pieces needed.

If you want to stay with your two work centers you need to redefine the
capacity in each.  Maybe 50/50, 60/40 etc., based on history.  This still
makes visibility difficult, but is better than saying both have full
capacity.


Julie Clancy  CPIM  CIRM
Education Consultant
iWork Software

Office: 1-336-852-0455 EXT: 6118


+---
| This is the BPCS Users Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to BPCS-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to BPCS-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to BPCS-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner: dasmussen@aol.com
+---
+---
| This is the BPCS Users Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to BPCS-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to BPCS-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to BPCS-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner: dasmussen@aol.com
+---

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.