1.3. The use of MRP
Fifteen of the companies using MRP were making use
of recognized software packages supplied bya vendor;
eight had developed an in-house system designed by a
consultant. Nineteen used the same inventoryrecords
(e.g., gross requirements, scheduled receipts, projected
on-hand inventory, net requirements, planned order
receipts and planned order release). Four had introduced
additional inventoryrecord s.1 Eight of the
companies accepted a computer statement, and 15
accepted a computer statement onlyafter reviewing it.
None used manual calculations alone.
Global competition means deliverybeco mes increasinglyimpor
tant. Lead-times for purchased items are
determined following negotiation between the purchasers,
within the companyan d with its suppliers. Thirteen
of the companies using MRP companies arrived at their
lead-time byagreem ent and five used past data, based
on their knowledge of the market and up-dated it if
change occurred. The others used both methods.
Anderson et al. (1982) suggest that most (70.4%)
MRP users work in time buckets2 of one week. But here
onlyfiv e companies used the MRP monthlytime bucket.
Six applied weeklytim e buckets because of the volume
of items involved, or theyused weeklytim e buckets
for ‘short jobs’ and monthlyfor ‘longer jobs.’ Twelve
companies worked in days because of the batch quantity
of their workload demand. The most popular planning
horizon was a year or less; only five used a three-year
horizon, and another five used a 1–6 month period. Two
companies used a two-year horizon.3
To enable MRP to carryout its explosion, the
formulas for lot sizing must be part of its computer
1.3. The use of MRPFifteen of the companies using MRP were making useof recognized software packages supplied bya vendor;eight had developed an in-house system designed by aconsultant. Nineteen used the same inventoryrecords(e.g., gross requirements, scheduled receipts, projectedon-hand inventory, net requirements, planned orderreceipts and planned order release). Four had introducedadditional inventoryrecord s.1 Eight of thecompanies accepted a computer statement, and 15accepted a computer statement onlyafter reviewing it.None used manual calculations alone.Global competition means deliverybeco mes increasinglyimportant. Lead-times for purchased items aredetermined following negotiation between the purchasers,within the companyan d with its suppliers. Thirteenof the companies using MRP companies arrived at theirlead-time byagreem ent and five used past data, basedon their knowledge of the market and up-dated it ifchange occurred. The others used both methods.Anderson et al. (1982) suggest that most (70.4%)MRP users work in time buckets2 of one week. But hereonlyfiv e companies used the MRP monthlytime bucket.Six applied weeklytim e buckets because of the volumeof items involved, or theyused weeklytim e bucketsfor ‘short jobs’ and monthlyfor ‘longer jobs.’ Twelvecompanies worked in days because of the batch quantityof their workload demand. The most popular planninghorizon was a year or less; only five used a three-yearhorizon, and another five used a 1–6 month period. Twocompanies used a two-year horizon.3To enable MRP to carryout its explosion, theformulas for lot sizing must be part of its computer
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
