By Mike Hart
Many small businesses implement a manufacturing software package and are disappointed to find little improvement in their manufacturing efficiency. In some cases, they are even less efficient than before. Why is this?
My company, DBA Software Inc., has been a developer of manufacturing software for small businesses since 1992. Over the years we’ve seen many companies achieve dramatic efficiency gains and others flounder with mediocre results.
One pattern is clear. The companies that fail to achieve efficiency gains inevitably attempt to replicate the processes from their old system instead of adopting the process workflow offered by the new system. Based on discussions with colleagues in the industry, I believe this is the case not only with our software, but with other manufacturing software packages as well.
A manufacturing process workflow will seem like more work to your users. This is because it formalizes all the manufacturing processes that are being done anyway, but in an informal fashion. Formal processes done on the computer provide an abundance of timely information that helps users make better decisions. This is how the formal process workflow delivers the payoff.
By contrast, informal processes are characterized by a lack of information that causes users to develop counter-productive defensive measures such as stock hoarding, hot lists, and a reliance on expediting. To become more efficient, you must replace informal processes with formal processes.
With any new system, it is human nature for users to want to replicate the workflow they are comfortable with and know so well. Left to their own devices, users often pick and choose elements in the new system that simulate familiar processes and ignore processes that are new in concept, such as routings and work centers, that appear to be optional.
It is common for users to devise processes of their own. Stock adjustments, for example, might be used instead of formal screens that handle receipts or issues. Homemade planning solutions that bypass MRP are often used to manually create jobs and purchase orders. A single ongoing sales order or purchase order might be used with each customer or vendor instead of letting the system create and close orders as designed. Manufacturing jobs might be used for maintenance or internal projects, even though they are not designed for such purposes.
Another reason companies devise their own workflow stems from the notion that each company has unique requirements that don’t apply to other companies. This is a faulty premise. The basic principles of efficiently combining labor, material, and outside services within a factory to make products are universal and apply to all companies and industries. The details and emphases may differ, but the fundamental workflow processes are the same.
The manufacturing workflow is not a rigid, “one size fits all” method of manufacturing. Instead, you adapt the software’s workflow to suit your operational requirements. For example, if your jobs are short in duration or run on automatic machines, you can apply standard labor hours to jobs instead of collecting actual labor hours.
So if you have invested in a manufacturing software package and are disappointed with a lack of efficiency gains, take a fresh look at your process workflow. Identify homemade processes and replace them with formal system processes. Implement all the system’s core processes, such as routings and work centers, so that the software is used to its full potential and can deliver the results for which it was designed.
Mike Hart is the co-founder and President of DBA Software Inc., a leading provider of manufacturing software for small businesses.
Dear Mr Hart
I have been watching your manufacturing system for years but does not acquire the talent to go through your system smoothly.
I understand that there are lots of tutorial videos available, but they are not in dept details.
Do you have any DBA Mfg experts in Hong Kong, if so please let me know.
Thanks
S.K. Wong ( email: [email protected] )
Jan 25 2010
Posted by: S.K. Wong | Jan 25, 2010 at 01:43 AM