Tracking work orders looking for ideas on how to control them

[Cordon - 2007]

Hello all,

A couple of years ago we tried tracking our products with work orders and it didn't work very well. The main problem was that we often have 30 to 40 (or more) different parts going through at the same time and the work orders didn't follow the product, here's why. We have 8 to 14 steps in our process and most of the time we will have parts in the first process and parts all the way through the last process and everything in between. When it didn't work having just one work order we made multiple copies for each station as they received it. That seemed to work until we noticed that as the job was being finished that the operators didn't know that the job was done and they would keep the WO at there station (32 stations and about 55 people by the way).

Well now it's going to be manditory for work orders to be on the floor and I'm looking for ideas. I quite sure many of you deal with or have dealt with this before. HELP!!!

Thanks everyone!

Opps, didn't the documentation forum.

 

[mshell]

We use a job traveler that identifies each process required for the part. Is that the type of document you are referring too?

 

[Cordon - 2007]

We use a job traveler that identifies each process required for the part. Is that the type of document you are referring too?

Exactly Part of the problem we had before was some orders that go through the shop are 50,000 plus pieces that last 4 months of the year and at the same time we are running smaller orders and the employee's would get confused. Right now I'm just looking for some way to simplify it. I must have blinders on, it can't be that hard to figure it out. Sometimes it's just hard to figure stuff out when you get stuck in old ways!

 

[mshell]

You could make a part specification for each part that list the requirements for the product in the specificaton and simply have the traveler to guide the part to the required departments.

 

[Jim Wynne]

You could make a part specification for each part that list the requirements for the product in the specificaton and simply have the traveler to guide the part to the required departments.

I don't have an answer, because I try to stay away from material control issues as much as possible

, but I think that Cordon's problem relates to "pull" systems, where material is moved forward as it's needed, and not just when operation 1 is complete for the full order. In the latter situation, it's easy to have a traveler accompany the material through the shop, but when there's an order for 50k pieces and they get pulled through the system, it would be easy for there to be a lot of copies of travelers. I'm sure there's a Lean expert here who'll have some ideas; all I can think of is having each operation fill out some type of form with the WO number, quantity, etc. as each batch is moved. I suppose each operation could also keep a running tally of parts made against a given WO. There should be only enough raw material issued to the floor to make the number of parts necessary, so the total number of parts made shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Steve Prevette]

A couple of years ago we tried tracking our products with work orders and it didn't work very well. The main problem was that we often have 30 to 40 (or more) different parts going through at the same time and the work orders didn't follow the product, here's why. We have 8 to 14 steps in our process and most of the time we will have parts in the first process and parts all the way through the last process and everything in between. When it didn't work having just one work order we made multiple copies for each station as they received it. That seemed to work until we noticed that as the job was being finished that the operators didn't know that the job was done and they would keep the WO at there station (32 stations and about 55 people by the way).

Well now it's going to be manditory for work orders to be on the floor and I'm looking for ideas. I quite sure many of you deal with or have dealt with this before. HELP!!!

A few thoughts. Another response said you used travelers. Are they bar coded / automatically entered when they pass a step? Do you have time stamps? As part of entering completion of a step, can the operators choose from a pick list of common problems that are encountered?

With a basic time-stamp system and annotation of common problems, you can develop a suite of control charts for cycle times, quantities per day, percent completed without delay/problem, and a Pareto chart of problems. With that information, you can get a quick start on system improvements.

 

[Cordon - 2007]

Right now we are just trying to figure out the best way to handle the travelers as we often have the same job on at least one machine in every department.

To anwser some question-
bar codes: yes but no scanners yet
time stamps: not yet, it's all coming in time

To piggy back off of what JSW05 said, we might be able to keep it simple and just write the info on the wire tag that we write the part number on. The only problem is that the traveler has all the material call outs for each station.

 

[Wes Bucey]

Right now we are just trying to figure out the best way to handle the travelers as we often have the same job on at least one machine in every department.

To anwser some question-
bar codes: yes but no scanners yet
time stamps: not yet, it's all coming in time

To piggy back off of what JSW05 said, we might be able to keep it simple and just write the info on the wire tag that we write the part number on. The only problem is that the traveler has all the material call outs for each station.

What you are looking at is essentially creating travelers to coincide with the quantity involved in a "batch" (regardless if the batch represents work product for an hour, a shift, a week, or the entire order.)

As an example: in my machining business, we often had blanket orders covering one or more years of product supply with semi-fixed delivery dates (subject to some "move in" or "move out"), but it was not economically feasible for us to build all the parts for the entire order and hold them in inventory, thus tying up vast amounts of capital and shelf space.

Our solution was to "batch" the orders to be slightly ahead of projected Just In Time demands by the customer. Each batch was handled internally as if it were a completely separate order. A new traveler with print, Control Plan, Inspection documents, etc. was created for each batch. As soon as finished inventory was decremented down to a predetermined quantity, a new batch order was triggered. Everything was completely transparent to the customer. He wanted to "release" goods from his blanket order. He didn't care whether we had the complete order sitting on the shelf or only enough to fill his release request, as long as we NEVER missed a release. For traceability purposes, we assigned a lot number to each batch and marked parts or container labels accordingly. If a customer increased a release quantity so that we had to ship from more than one lot, we made separate shipments of each lot, with written notice to the customer that this was done to maintain traceability.

With computers, this is a really simple system to keep straight.

 

[Joel]

You could try using production logs at each work station which should be attached to the work order (see attached document). This would enable your production floor to keep track of Order Quanity, time, parts made, parts scraped.

 

[wmarhel]

I think that Cordon's problem relates to "pull" systems, where material is moved forward as it's needed, and not just when operation 1 is complete for the full order. In the latter situation, it's easy to have a traveler accompany the material through the shop, but when there's an order for 50k pieces and they get pulled through the system, it would be easy for there to be a lot of copies of travelers. I'm sure there's a Lean expert here who'll have some ideas; all I can think of is having each operation fill out some type of form with the WO number, quantity, etc. as each batch is moved. I suppose each operation could also keep a running tally of parts made against a given WO. There should be only enough raw material issued to the floor to make the number of parts necessary, so the total number of parts made shouldn't be a problem.

If a facility is operating on the principles of lean, flow, or pull, then travelers aren't needed. The material should never queue up at any specific location nor should equipment be grouped by functional process. Lean, or more importantly, the Toyota Production System was premised on the use of pull and utilized work cells where raw materials came in and finished product came out (this could also be for a sub-assembly which would then be consumed in multiple cells in the facility and which would be staged in supermarkets).

If labor reporting needs to be tied to a specific work order (which is usually a component of the traveler) then it is possible to create "blanket work orders" for extremely large sums of parts and record production against the blanket work order for a specific part. Just use kanban cards to manage the movement of product and there is no need for someone to create traveler for each batch of product.

The creation of travelers should be viewed as "waste". They don't add any particular value to a product or service, and in many cases do nothing to add to the control of a shopfloor. Add to this complexity, the problems that arise when a traveler is lost or switched with another pallet of parts.

One of the key things I mention to people and which typically sets the MIS people into a rage is that businesses should be set up based on processes, and not some MRP/ERP system. Utilize the software to aid the process, and don't dictate the process based on sequences of keystrokes needed to pull up a particular screen.

MRP/ERP are relatively generic and since not every company produces the same parts, nor is it likely to have the same equipment, does it make any sense for two totally different facilities to operate in the same manner because of software? Of course, the MIS people will look at you like a heretic.
But since I don't believe in sacred cows, and believe they are crunchy and taste good with ketchup......I usually get a lot of those looks.

Set-up the facility to group the equipment as best as possible for products, not processes (drilling, grinding, painting, etc). Make the product flow as best you can. So what if a machine is capable of spitting out 1000 parts per hour when you really only need 50, slow it down if it makes sense.

If you really sit down and think through it, the conclusion you'll likely come to is that travelers are a product of the way things were done in that past and their continued existance is really due to the fact that nobody questioned their use.

There may be times when a traveler is needed such as for a "special" build where it is much different from the normal production steps or requires special parts. Car manufacturers use a what can be considered a traveler for each automobile's final assembly. But look at the level of variation possible (manual or automatic transmission, cloth or leather interior, interior color, exterior color, etc) for each vehicle and that fact that all these variations may come down one line.

Wayne