Katana bills of materials: check component availability before promising finished stock

Finished-product availability depends on components, quantities, units and work already committed. A count of completed items answers a different question from the number the business could produce next. A Katana evaluation should trace that distinction through an actual bill of materials and the proposed purchasing and production process.

This fictional manufacturer assembles several products using a shared component. The sales team wants to give a credible commitment without allocating the same material twice. The production team needs to understand the source of the requirement and what changes when a component is delayed or a design revision changes consumption.

Katana covers inventory and manufacturing-related work, but the exact configuration, integration and current contract need confirmation. The following cases are implementation requirements and a planning workbook. They do not claim that every proposed reservation, costing or integration behavior is available without configuration or a relevant purchased function.

Design the work around the actual completion event

1. Define the item and the unit before the recipe

Identify purchased materials, intermediate assemblies and finished products with stable item references. Record the unit used to buy, store and consume each material.

A plausible recipe can still consume the wrong quantity when purchasing and production use different units.

2. Version the bill of materials

Give the approved recipe an identifiable version and explain when it applies. Keep product changes separate from accidental edits to a live production requirement.

A revised component quantity can alter unfinished work without the team understanding which jobs should change.

3. Inspect the shared-component constraint

Map the same component across the relevant products and commitments. Ask how the intended arrangement presents available material and work already assigned.

Each product can look independently buildable while the combined plan requires more of the shared component than exists.

4. Connect a shortage to an owned action

Record whether the response is purchasing, rescheduling, an approved substitute or a changed customer commitment. Preserve the source job and the person authorized to decide.

A shortage indicator can remain visible without anyone accepting the purchasing or customer action.

5. Follow consumption and completion together

Inspect the intended material issue, finished output and any variance. Include a partial completion and a rejected quantity where those reflect the business.

Closing a production task can make stock appear correct while leaving unexplained material consumption.

6. Review the promise seen by sales

Identify which information the salesperson uses before confirming a delivery expectation. Keep uncertain supply and unfinished production distinguishable from ready-to-ship stock.

A useful planning date can be communicated as an unconditional available-stock promise.

A worked batch: distinguish clean work, repaired work and unresolved work

Use the following fictional batch for a small manufacturer planning assembled products from shared materials. Its purpose is to make the operating definitions inspectable before a live rollout. It is not a Katana benchmark. The batch contains 110 candidate supported production commitments; 82 satisfy the agreed criteria on the first review. The remaining 28 need clarification, correction or a decision. After controlled repair, 14 of those held cases become usable and 14 remain unresolved.

The first-pass share is 82 / 110, or 74.5%. The final usable share is 96 / 110, or 87.3%. Those figures describe different things. A report showing only the final number would conceal the intervention needed to get there. A report showing only first-pass work would overlook the value recovered through a legitimate correction. Keep both, with the reason each held case entered or left review.

Rehearsal measure	Fictional input or calculation	Interpretation for this task
Candidates inspected	110	Every candidate remains in the starting denominator
Accepted without repair	82	The agreed conditions were met at first inspection
Initially held	28	Work needing a separate decision or correction
Released after repair	14	A subset of held work, counted once after approval
Still unresolved	14	Visible work awaiting an owner or missing evidence
Final usable output	82 + 14 = 96	Approved supported production commitments, not all candidates

For this example, one supported production commitment is an operating outcome, not automatically a customer, sale or financial return. Define its completion evidence from the playbook above. If a later commercial result matters, track it in a separate column and follow the same reference into the next system. Changing the unit halfway through the report can make a larger count look like an improvement when it merely answers a different question.

Put review and repair into the operating cost

Assume 4 minutes to inspect each candidate, 11 additional minutes for each successfully repaired case, and an internal labor rate of $45 per hour. These are invented workload assumptions. Initial inspection takes 110 × 4 / 60 = 7.33 hours. Successful repair adds 14 × 11 / 60 = 2.57 hours. Keep any investigation of the 14 unresolved cases as a separate estimate; the present calculation has not priced that unknown work.

With a hypothetical $75 allocation for supporting tools, the scoped batch cost is $75 + (7.33 + 2.57) × $45 = $520.50. Dividing by 96 approved outcomes gives $5.42 per supported production commitment. The $75 allocation is not a quoted Katana subscription. Replace it with the actual incremental charges appropriate to your configuration, and avoid allocating the full same shared subscription to several batches without a consistent rule.

For a small manufacturer planning assembled products from shared materials, the $520.50 estimate answers a bounded process question. It excludes unspecified recovery work, broader project setup and a downstream commercial result. The 96 approved supported production commitments need their own completion evidence; they should not be relabelled as customers or profit. Decide whether that defined output and the remaining 14 unresolved cases justify the next controlled stage with the available staffing.

Test sensitivity before deciding that volume is the answer

Hold the scoped cost constant and suppose ten fewer candidates meet the final acceptance criteria. Approved output would fall to 86, and the cost per usable outcome would rise to $6.05. This is a sensitivity exercise, not a prediction about Katana. It shows why the acceptance definition and the treatment of exceptions matter when comparing a clean-looking dashboard with the work performed outside it.

Alternatively, examine the incremental repair work. At the assumed labor rate, one 11-minute repair costs $8.25 before any extra charge. That is a useful boundary for deciding which corrections deserve attention. A correction that preserves an important relationship or prevents an incorrect release may be worthwhile even when it is slower. A low-value case that repeatedly consumes review time may belong in a held or excluded category instead.

Capacity also has a denominator. The scoped 9.90 hours must fit into the actual coverage available for a small manufacturer planning assembled products from shared materials. If the team has eight hours allocated to this task, it cannot promise unlimited same-period processing merely because the software accepts more inputs. Schedule the remaining review visibly, reduce the batch or assign additional qualified coverage. A queue hidden in a spreadsheet is still part of the operation.

Run the six acceptance exercises with a second operator

For a small manufacturer planning assembled products from shared materials, run the exercises against the exact selected Katana configuration. The accepted unit is a supported production commitment, so a successful screen or integration connection alone does not settle the result. Keep safe source records and separate demonstrated behavior from a requested capability. Retain the unexpected case because it may reveal why one of the 14 unresolved outcomes cannot yet be approved.

Exercise 1: Define the item and the unit before the recipe

Trace one material from its supplier quantity through the intended component consumption.

The team can reconcile the physical amount and the system quantity without an undocumented conversion. Record the input reference, the observed result and the responsible next operator. If the result depends on a manual convention, retain that convention with this exercise so the next person can repeat it.

Exercise 2: Version the bill of materials

Compare a controlled old-version job with a new order after a recipe revision.

The proposed setup has an explainable rule for each job and any manual adjustment is visible. Record the input reference, the observed result and the responsible next operator. If the result depends on a manual convention, retain that convention with this exercise so the next person can repeat it.

Exercise 3: Inspect the shared-component constraint

Use two controlled jobs that compete for the same remaining material.

The production decision identifies the real constraint and does not promise the same material twice. Record the input reference, the observed result and the responsible next operator. If the result depends on a manual convention, retain that convention with this exercise so the next person can repeat it.

Exercise 4: Connect a shortage to an owned action

Delay a controlled component and ask the planner to explain the next approved action.

The affected job and customer promise can be traced to a named decision owner. Record the input reference, the observed result and the responsible next operator. If the result depends on a manual convention, retain that convention with this exercise so the next person can repeat it.

Exercise 5: Follow consumption and completion together

Reconcile a controlled job from starting components to acceptable finished output and remaining material.

Physical movement and recorded quantities support the same completed commitment. Record the input reference, the observed result and the responsible next operator. If the result depends on a manual convention, retain that convention with this exercise so the next person can repeat it.

Exercise 6: Review the promise seen by sales

Ask a covering salesperson to handle a controlled enquiry for a product with a delayed component.

They can explain the approved commitment and the uncertainty that still requires a decision. Record the input reference, the observed result and the responsible next operator. If the result depends on a manual convention, retain that convention with this exercise so the next person can repeat it.

Keep an operating record someone else can continue

For a small manufacturer planning assembled products from shared materials, keep one reference for each supported production commitment. Use that reference across the input, the accepted result and any exception record. It allows a reviewer to follow the work without relying on a customer’s name, a screenshot title or the memory of the person who first handled it. Where the destination system assigns its own identifier, retain both references and explain the relationship.

Record field	What to put in it	Why it belongs in this workflow
Input reference	The original request, item or approved brief	Connects the result to the actual starting point
Configuration version	The relevant rule, template or account arrangement	Makes an observed result reproducible
Completion evidence	What establishes an accepted supported production commitment	Keeps the outcome definition stable
Exception reason	The missing fact, conflict or failed requirement	Directs repair toward the cause
Current owner	The person or queue that accepted the next action	Makes continuation visible
Review point	When the case or configuration needs another decision	Prevents unfinished work from disappearing

For one supported production commitment, write what the evidence establishes before proposing an explanation. In a small manufacturer planning assembled products from shared materials, the note needs the starting reference and the accepted next responsibility as well as a visible result. Keep the supporting source small enough to inspect. A large screenshot collection should not replace an explicit decision about this particular outcome.

Before increasing the workload for a small manufacturer planning assembled products from shared materials, review the held supported production commitments by their actual cause. Use the six exercises to locate an input, configuration or responsibility gap, then repeat the affected route after its repair. The first ordinary supported production commitment does not establish that a different unresolved case has become acceptable.

Make the next decision from the evidence

Approve a production route that reconciles units, recipes and shared constraints before increasing order volume. Retain the material and job references with a decision so later changes can be investigated without reconstructing the planner’s memory.

Katana’s value should be assessed through supported commitments and controlled stock movements. If the sample cannot explain how material becomes usable finished output, improve the item and recipe model before treating an additional feature or a larger contract as the solution.

Keep a short decision note for this specific Katana use case: the work approved, the conditions still outstanding, the owner of each outstanding decision and the next review date. A conditional approval is useful when its boundaries are visible. It becomes misleading when an unresolved requirement is presented as an observed capability.