S5 Box

Login Form


Is stockopname sampling possible?


One day I got into the Manufacturing Company, say Company A.

In the Logistics Department I saw a job description of a staff member.

In the job description, I see that one of the routine tasks is stockpname sampling 10 item codes per day in the warehouse.

At a glance, the stock-record sampling of 10 item codes per day seems easy. What do you think?

Then I asked the Logistics Staff whether the stock-taking sampling was working, it was not working, he said. Why?

I will explain the answer.

The storage of one item code in Company A's warehouse was scattered in several locations in one warehouse.

So, for example, the 10 code items to be sampled are item codes: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J.

When the Logistics Staff enters the warehouse to carry out stockopname sampling, the first item code to be stockpiled is the item code A, the Logistics Staff will go to the location where item code A is usually stored, say the stock is 10 pcs, it will be recorded on the paper stock item A is 10.

Is A total stock of goods = 10? No, because as already stated, the goods in the warehouse are scattered, the Logistics Staff will continue to look for item A codes in other locations. Because his memory is limited, he will search the entire warehouse, another place where item A is stored.

So if the Logistics Staff is asked stockopname sampling 10 items per day, this means "combing" the warehouse 10 times per day, difficult and time consuming, right?

Because of this routine task of stock-taking sampling was no longer done by the logistics staff.

The cause of not easy stock-taking sampling is the spread of one item code to several locations.

Do you have any ideas so that this stockopname sampling can be done?

The easiest idea is to reunite the scattered items.

Is this reunification idea easy? Very difficult and time-consuming and personnel-consuming, bringing back scattered items is much more difficult and resource-consuming than a full stock-record.

The thing that makes this illogical is that when the concatenation job isn't finished, the batched item code starts to scatter again.

Is there a better idea than yours?