|
iomnet
|
|
|
System Administrator
Total Posts: 87
Joined: 12 Feb 07
Member #1
|
In a manufacturing repetitive environment (like nuts & bolts, eg) where the Works Order is kept open whilst Backflush Transactions are booked for the manufacture of the Works Order Part, what are the reasons for backflushing the Standard Bill of Materials rather than the Works Order Bill of Materials when it comes to Component Issues?
|
|
iomnet
|
|
|
System Administrator
Total Posts: 87
Joined: 12 Feb 07
Member #1
|
If the works order BOM is altered to reflect the build of that run then the works order BOM should be used to backflush material, as this is a reflection of intended usage altered from the standard BOM. I will take a guess, but the person posting the question probably has a system that allows works order BOM changes but always backflushes the standard BOM components, which I would say is referred to as a "systems limitation". I would always want the works order BOM backflushed against.
Steven W
|
|
iomnet
|
|
|
System Administrator
Total Posts: 87
Joined: 12 Feb 07
Member #1
|
There are no good reasons I can think of unless the works order BoM doesn't include scrap and shrink. One could ask why the two are different and there issues around lead-time and how back flushing is handled.
Derek T
|
|
iomnet
|
|
|
System Administrator
Total Posts: 87
Joined: 12 Feb 07
Member #1
|
Not sure I understand the question but we use backflushing on Baan and BPCS and once the work order is released it gets the BOM effective at that time and that is what would then be backflushed.
Regards
Malcolm
|
|
iomnet
|
|
|
System Administrator
Total Posts: 87
Joined: 12 Feb 07
Member #1
|
Backflushing was very common in the early to mid nineties less to day except there are both a number of companies and software using it. Backflushing works on the basis that the Production Batch (works order) confirms the components against the BOM and will be the standard quantity issues again that WO - ie. produced a 100 nuts used 100kgs of material - You backflush all at the end of the run or partially during the run. The only real issue with Backflusing is that Inventory has to be around the 100% accuracy mark other wise you are constantly cycle counting
Malcolm
|
|
iomnet
|
|
|
System Administrator
Total Posts: 87
Joined: 12 Feb 07
Member #1
|
If there is a works order bill attached to the works order that should reflect what is actually made and that should be the bill which is used for backflushing. Normally the standard bill and the works order bill should be the same but due to temporary variations (e.g. use of alternative parts or materials) or the introduction of an engineering change not yet implemented in Manufacturing may cause them to be different.
Regards
Gunther K
|
|
iomnet
|
|
|
System Administrator
Total Posts: 87
Joined: 12 Feb 07
Member #1
|
My answer is hopefully fairly clear:
No reason whatsoever.
In most cases, of course, the works order bill is a direct copy of the standard bill so the two are the same. However, if for some reason it has been decided to use different components for a particular works order then anybody who decided to backflush the standard items, rather than those specifically agreed as being used for this order, would need their head examining.
Ian H
|
|
iomnet
|
|
|
System Administrator
Total Posts: 87
Joined: 12 Feb 07
Member #1
|
I would like to know the answer to this one! The works order bill of materials, if it is different from the standard bill of materials, should be the one which more accurately reflects what has gone into the works order, since the standard bill may be changed only annually. Thus it is the works order bill of materials should be used since the aim of backflushing is to reduce component stock accurately!. My answer is that it is probably because the software writers used the wrong one!
Please send me the correct answer if the above is not correct!
Peter C
|
|
Roland
|
|
|
Forum Member
Total Posts: 3
Joined: 06 Jul 07
Member #2
|
Here's a new twist. In general I agree with those contributors who have said that the Work Order bill reflects the reality for that order, for example component substitution. However ...
When I last used backflushing we were using it to record usage of two types of item:
1. Moulding powder, which was drawn from large bins, and could not be issued explicitly. Work Order bill was important here, because if we switched production to another moulding press the issue may have been by sack.
2. Consumable items that were not worth managing individually. If we discovered that the consumption rate for the item was wrong it would have been easier to amend the Standard Bill usage, and not bother propagating the change through the 1000s of open Works Orders.
|
Backflushing?
29 Jun 2007, 20:08