PO tracking and production ERP for Tiny Girl garment manufacturing

Highsense Infotech built a PO tracking and production management ERP for Tiny Girl, a Surat garment manufacturer, linking bill of materials to raw material requests, vendor purchase orders, goods receipt, per-product production routes, step-wise quantity tracking, quality control and fourteen operational reports.

The problem

A garment unit does not make one thing in one way. A shirt goes cutting to stitching to finishing to QC to packing. A t-shirt goes cutting to printing to stitching to packing. A kurti picks up embroidery in between. Each style carries its own route through the floor, and a production system that assumes one fixed sequence stops being useful the moment the style mix changes.

Tiny Girl was tracking all of it on paper and in spreadsheets, which meant nobody could answer the two questions that actually matter on a factory floor: where exactly is this order right now, and are the materials for it going to arrive in time. Fabric and trim requirements were worked out by hand from the bill of materials, so wastage allowance was a mental calculation that varied by whoever did it.

The gap between the store, purchase and production was where orders went quiet. A raw material request would be raised, a purchase order placed with a vendor, part of the consignment would arrive short, and none of that was visible against the production order waiting on it. Delays surfaced when a line stopped, not when the shortage first appeared.

What Highsense Infotech built

We started from the bill of materials and made it do real work. Each product holds its per-piece material quantity and its own wastage percentage, so raising a production order for a quantity computes the fabric, trims, thread, labels and packing material actually required, wastage included, without anyone reaching for a calculator. Each product also carries its own route, so the steps a style passes through are a property of that style rather than a company-wide assumption.

Then we joined store, purchase and production into one chain. A production order raises a raw material request; short lines become vendor purchase orders; goods receipt records what was received, what was rejected and why, and whether the balance is a replacement due or a short close. Every one of those states reads back onto the production order itself, so its status says waiting for RM, PO generated, partially received, RM issued or ready to start. The shortage is visible at planning, not when a line stops.

On the floor, tracking is per step and per piece. Each step records received, completed, rejected and rework quantities, so pending at any step is a number rather than an estimate, and progress across the route is calculated rather than reported. QC runs as inspection lots against the order sitting at its QC step, with passed pieces moving forward and rejected or rework pieces going to their own registers with a defect reason attached. Fourteen reports read from the same records, and seven roles decide who sees and approves what.

Inside the system

What changed

• ✓
  Where an order stands is a lookup, not a walk around the floor: current step, current department, pieces pending and percentage complete all read from the same step records.
• ✓
  Material requirement comes out of the bill of materials with wastage already applied, so the quantity to buy is computed the same way every time regardless of who raises the order.
• ✓
  A material shortage shows up against the production order waiting on it, at planning, instead of surfacing when a line runs out.
• ✓
  Vendor performance is visible rather than remembered, because every purchase order carries its expected date, what arrived, what was rejected and what was short closed.
• ✓
  Rejection and rework are attributed to the step and the reason, which turns a vague quality problem into a specific one somebody can act on.

Technology