|
> We have similar problems with BPCS operations marked complete > " accidentally ". > What we do have as well is operations marked complete > without any labour transactions done at all. > We can release a shop order one day and the next day > operations are marked complete on the work centre schedule. These operations that mysteriously got marked "complete" by accident. Do you check history in FLT file on the shop orders involved to find out if there was any labor transaction on them? If you find such postings, do you check the original labor tickets they came from & the edit lists of human data entry to find out if they were keyed correctly but changed in the JIT620 SFC620 job stream? We have found that if we over-report labor to a shop order, BPCS automatically transfers the ticket to some other open shop order on same item/warehouse, if any is available, to spread the work around. We are able to confirm this was not a keying error by seeing it correctly posted in the JIT610 SFC610 edit listings but wrong in the JIT620 SFC620 job stream. The most agregious for us is when it is scrap that tips the order over the quantity required. The way we handle scrap is to repair / replace the operational imperatives AT THE TIME OF THE PRODUCTION so that what we produce is precisely what is called for, but BPCS treats scrap as something that is to be replaced later. Now let's suppose we have a final labor reporting on a shop order, which includes both the quantity that takes it over the quantity required, by the amount of the scrap, and also we say this is completed operation. BPCS will post this to some other order that is open & say it is completed instead. What we need is some clue at the JIT600 SFC600 input screen point that some input is at risk of this happening & an option to increase the order quantity to accommodate both the completed & scrapped, or alter the BPCS substitution rules to exclude scrap. I think that belongs in SYS800 so that companies would have the option of including or excluding scrap from this equation. A phenomena I have noticed is that some people use as a technique to verify their input by looking for the resulting transactions, and if they cannot find them, rekey them as if the original input did not exist. You see that in physical inventory tags for example, or bogus costs. Someone was keying something legitimate, put it on a wrong customer #, or item #, or facility, then could not find it in the right one, and rekeyed it correctly, but now you have the bad input being processed because BPCS cannot tell the difference. MacWheel99@aol.com (Alister Wm Macintyre) (Al Mac) +--- | 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 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.