 |
|
Topic: ASSY vs CSAS
|
| By: Leo | Posted on: Mar 1 2018 at 09:02:55 AM | | Just wondering if there are any fundamental pros/cons of using either or on these two types. Would love to hear any input from people who use these. I am just about to start building assemblies in minimrp and would like to get it "right" the first time, lol! | |
| By: Guest | Posted on: Mar 1 2018 at 02:30:18 PM | We build a range of network devices. Each one is a metal box containing a few small circuit boards (sub assemblies)
One if those circuit boards (a simple power/charging circuit) is generic in that it is used in all of our different devices.
The other boards are specific to one device.
The charging circuit board is built on its own work order. We build lots of them on their own work order and enter them into our inventory. That board is setup as CSAS.
CSAS means that when we build any finished network device the BOM will pull the ready built charging circuit sub assembly from inventory.
The other boards are built at the same time as the finished product. They have part numbers but never exist in inventory. They are type ASSY.
If a sub assembly is type ASSY then it means the bom will explode down through that level and pull the components from inventory to build the sub assembly as part of the main work order. | |
| By: Guest | Posted on: Mar 1 2018 at 02:36:50 PM | In summary then.
When you build a multilevel assembly:-
CSAS sub assemblies will be taken from inventory.
ASSY sub assemblies will not be taken from inventory. The BOM will break down into that level and take the components from inventory so that the ASSY can be built at the same time as the top level. | |
| By: Leo | Posted on: Mar 1 2018 at 10:04:38 PM | Thanks for the replies!
I'm wondering how my situation may fit. We have some smaller assemblies that are built both ways.
-Have you seen any case where it would be best to set them up both ways?
-Perhaps just better to bite the bullet and make them a CSAS?
Is there a downside to leaving something that would typically be a CSAS as an ASSY?
Sorry if I'm just spit-balling ideas/thoughts out here.
I wonder if my real question is just this: Are there any downsides to something being a CSAS?
| |
| By: John O' USR | Posted on: Mar 2 2018 at 04:30:48 AM | Before using minimrp we used something that we had specially made for us. That had a process that we called 'the flush'. That's when all of the components are flushed out of the inventory.
The flush happened when the finished assembly was shipped to the customer. I believe that's how many MRP systems do it.
But the down-side of that system was that we would build some sub assemblies and hold them until they were required. Sometimes we'd even build finished product and have that hanging round waiting for a customer to place the order. So because we held a lot of unshipped assemblies our inventory was always wrong because it showed components available that were not. So we didn't really have any idea what components we had available so we had to keep holding lots of components just in case.
mini mrp does it different. It has that Work Order with the Allocate and Issue stages. When you put a work order into the issued/WIP stage (kitting) that's when the components are taken out of the inventory. So to use that 'flush' terminology. minirp flushes at the time the materials are physically taken out of the inventory.
We do have a few discrepancies here and there but all in all our inventory is usually correct and we find we can hold less materials | |
| By: Support | Posted on: Mar 2 2018 at 04:47:54 AM | @Leo. Your question Is there a downside to leaving something that would typically be a CSAS as an ASSY?
Yes. I think there is a downside.
If you have a sub assembly that is type ASSY and you build some of those, in advance, with the intention of holding them in your inventory until they are required then, when you process/complete that work order, MiniMRP will take the components out of your inventory and enter the finished sub assemblies into your inventory.
That sounds good but when you come to build a finished product that contains that sub assembly MiniMRP will see that the sub assembly is type ASSY so it will build it again. So, at the end, you'd have pulled the components again and still have the sub assemblies on the shelf.
Bear in mind that a Multi-Level BOM can contain both types of Sub Assembly so you don't need to have all sub assemblies one way or the other.
Having said all that. I do know of some people who will have their sub assemblies as type ASSY because they usually build them as part of their main work order for the finished product. But, occasionally, maybe when they have a slack period, they'll build some sub assemblies and put them on the shelf. When they want to build finished product they just go into the sub assembly and switch it to CSAS before processing the BOM. That Makes MiniMRP take the ready built subassemblies instead of building them.
Also, what we're talking about only affects multi-level BOMs. Anyone reading this who just has simple flat/single level product BOMs can ignore all this and just leave everything as ASSY. | |
| By: Guest | Posted on: Mar 2 2018 at 05:01:31 AM | We leave all of our sub assemblies as type ASSY and we do build a lot of them in advance. But we don't create a work order for that. You can print the sub assembly's parts list for any quantity without creating a work order.
Because we din't create a work order minimrp does not know that those subassemblys exist and it also isn't aware that we took the parts to build those subassemblies.
When we get an order from customer to build and ship some motors we run the work order and that's when minimrp builds the sub assemblies taking all of the materials out of stock.
The way we do it means our database is wrong most of the time. but it is just the number of sub assemblies that's wrong and the components used to build those sub assemblies. The components are pretty specific not used anywhere else so its no biggy and I can see the shelf with the sub assemblies so I can pretty much count them without leaving my desk.
Works for us but might not work for you | |
| By: Leo | Posted on: Mar 2 2018 at 10:57:45 AM | Thanks to all for the replies! Plenty to chew on and go over with some co-workers for a game plan.
| |
Reply - add a comment to this topic.
You may enter letters, numbers and standard punctuation only. HTML and other scripts/tags will be rejected.
|
|
|
