SAP routing time versus shop-floor time
A capacity plan can be mathematically correct and operationally wrong. If the routing time in SAP no longer describes the work being done, every downstream calculation inherits that error: available hours, required people, order dates and the supposed bottleneck.
For a Plant Manager or COO, the question is not whether the ERP contains a number. It is whether that number represents the current method, product variant and resource under the conditions in which the factory must deliver.
Three different times are often treated as one
| Time | What it tells you | What to check |
|---|---|---|
| SAP routing or standard | The time currently used for planning and costing | Operation sequence, unit of measure, setup, batch size, revision and work centre |
| Observed shop-floor time | What happened during a defined observation | Method, product mix, staffing, interruptions and whether the observation was representative |
| Practical capacity time | Time actually available to deliver the planned mix | Shifts, breaks, changeovers, maintenance, quality losses and the constraint |
A stopwatch reading is not automatically a new standard. Equally, a standard in SAP is not proof of current capability. The purpose of a time study is to explain the difference, not simply replace one number with another.
Where the mismatch enters
In my REFA work, I start by walking the routing in the order operators actually perform it. I compare each operation with the system record and ask which activities are included, duplicated or missing. A welding sequence can be valid on paper while the real hand-off or inspection happens elsewhere. An assembly time may cover a different product configuration. Painting can have preparation, waiting or rework coded inconsistently.
These differences matter most when the plan is already tight. If the assumed time is too low, the schedule promises output the work centre cannot deliver. If it is too high, the model can hide unused capacity or distort staffing and cost. Either way, management may intervene in the wrong place.
A practical validation sequence
- Define the decision. Is the issue delivery promise, staffing, investment, costing or a supplier commitment? Fix the scope before measuring.
- Extract the current routing. Record operation number, work centre, setup and run time, unit, batch quantity and revision.
- Observe the real method. Follow the product through the relevant operations and record conditions, interruptions and variant differences. Use a suitable work-measurement method, including REFA where appropriate.
- Reconcile line by line. Distinguish a wrong time from a missing operation, changed sequence, data-entry convention or process loss.
- Test the production mix. Calculate load for the actual mix and the likely range of variants, then compare it with practical available hours at the constraint.
- Approve and maintain the standard. Give process ownership to Production, Planning and Engineering, with a trigger to revisit it when the method changes.
What to ask in the next capacity review
- Which operation limits output for the mix we are committing to?
- When was its routing last checked against the actual method?
- Does the time include the same setup, batch size and product variant used in the plan?
- Are waiting and losses visible separately from work content?
- Who can approve a routing correction, and how will planning use it?
If the answer is unclear, do not turn a single observed cycle into a plant-wide capacity promise. Validate a representative scope, quantify the effect on the plan, and then decide which SAP changes are justified.
EFE Lean connects Production Planning & SAP process work with REFA time studies and capacity validation. The useful output is a planning assumption management can defend and maintain.
Discuss a manufacturing challenge if your routing data and shop-floor evidence are pulling capacity decisions in different directions.
Comments are closed