A working check for Plant Managers and Operations Directors. Use it before accepting a new delivery promise, approving overtime or treating an ERP capacity figure as a physical fact. The purpose is to expose assumptions that need measurement, not to produce a universal capacity percentage.
Write down the product family, planning horizon, required output, shift pattern and resource that could limit the commitment. A plant-wide average conceals a local constraint. If the question concerns a specific customer order, check the routing and mix for that order rather than an annual average.
| Check | Question to test with evidence | Record |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Routing basis | Does SAP use the current product variant, operation sequence, batch size and crew? When was each time last validated? | Routing/version, owner, date, mismatch |
| 2. Observed standard | Were run and setup times established from representative observed work, with a defined method and operation boundary? | Sample, method, scope, conditions |
| 3. Product mix | Does the load calculation use quantities and times by product and operation, plus changeovers by batch? | Mix scenario and changeover count |
| 4. Constraint | Which work centre limits this mix? Is that conclusion based on load versus usable hours, or on an old assumption? | Constraint, load, available hours |
| 5. Allowances and losses | Are breaks, planned maintenance, staffing, quality rework and other allowances defined consistently, without double counting? | Inclusions, exclusions and owner |
| 6. Labour requirement | Does required staffing follow realistic task standards, skills and concurrent work rather than nominal headcount? | Skill/shift gap and assumptions |
| 7. Executable plan | Can material availability, sequence, staffing and maintenance support the output in the actual calendar? | Feasible promise and open risks |
For each operation, calculate planned units × validated run time, then add planned batches × validated setup time. Compare the total load with usable hours at that resource for the same period. Repeat for the mix and shift scenario under discussion. The smallest headroom at a required operation often governs the promise; upstream or downstream dependencies may make it tighter.
Keep run time, setup, allowance and recorded losses separate. A time study should state its method, observed conditions and scope. One unusually smooth or disrupted cycle is not a defensible standard.
| Item | Write your finding |
|---|---|
| Decision and deadline | ____________________________ |
| Mix and batches | ____________________________ |
| Constraint and usable hours | ____________________________ |
| Measured versus ERP times | ____________________________ |
| Most material uncertainty | ____________________________ |
| Evidence owner and validation date | ____________________________ |
| Commit / test / escalate | ____________________________ |
If routing and observed work disagree, reconcile their scope before changing the standard. If the constraint changes with mix, calculate separate scenarios. If usable hours are uncertain, test the shift calendar and loss definitions. Where a customer commitment depends on an unverified assumption, name its owner and date for a short validation before promising output.
For the detailed methods, read SAP routing time versus shop-floor evidence and capacity with a changing product mix. EFE Lean supports REFA time studies and capacity validation and Production Planning & SAP when the decision requires independent shop-floor evidence.
Review your capacity assumptions with EFE Lean if a delivery or investment decision depends on the number.