I think I'm getting lost in the technicalities of the terms used in the
manufacturing app. At first I thought that separate routes should exist
for inspections but then got the idea that routes should only be created
when products are physically being transformed into others which does
not happen during inspections. Now I'm thinking that even though
inspections might not physically change a part, some, if not all, could
to be appropriately modeled as separate routes. It at least seems
necessary for receiving inspection dept because even if the company
contracts out the work, the inspection stage is still required to verify
that the part is considered good for sale. The part sold to the
customer always has at least one BOM representing the raw material
purchased from the contracting company. Therefore it seems appropriate
to model the receiving inspection stage as a route that produces the
inspected version of the product received which is the product on the
customer order.
On 02/03/2014 11:07 AM, Christian Carlow wrote:
> After pieces are received into inventory they go to an inspection dept
> that determines the number of good and bad pieces. Since this
> inspection dept does not do any actual manufacturing to the part I
> assumed the work should be defined as the first step of the first
> manufacturing process that is supposed to occur. Using this model is
> fine when manufacturing process exists but when the manufacturing
> processes are contracted out or the part is bought ready to be sold
> and only the only work required is the inspection stage, this model
> doesn't seems sufficient. Does this mean that inspection-only tasks
> should also be modeled as routes with BOMs (technically finished
> goods) received being converted to the inspected versions of it? How
> would I account for the inspection-only work which may result in the
> rejection of the received finish goods?
Locked
