From an engineering standpoint, if it doesn’t have a separate part number for the sub-assembly, it isn’t an assembly, it is just a stage in the overall assembly of the top level.  The customer’s intention isn’t clear.  If they don’t have the product broken down by sub-assembly at different levels, why are they trying to allocate the labor individually to those stages?  The most straightforward solution would be to put the total operation time at the top level since there isn’t a way to allocate the portion to an object that doesn’t have a separate number to connect the cost, labor, and other costs to.

I agree with the above, if you are not maintaining a make to stock sub-assembly you cannot apportion a routing to it.

Your diagram shows multiple operations and I think this is the best way to separate portions of the overall work that you might in other circumstances allocate to specific sub-assemblies?

Cheers,

Wade

@ShawnBerk  ,@ConMan,   

Thanks for your reply.

Maybe I used a wrong word “sub-assembly”.

You can take it as a sub-routing for the main-subrouting.

From my experinece , before I join IFS, I worked many proejcts with Induestry Equipemnt Company, the sub-routing(or sub-assemblly), is quite normal in this industry.

And other system eg: SAP , or Apriso(MES)  support this kind of senario.

So, according to you response,

for IFS ,  put the sub-routing into a top level “operation” will be the solution for now.

THanks,