# Routing Accuracy Audit Template

> Source: https://netray.co/tools/routing-accuracy-audit-template
> Publisher: Netray (netray.co), AI and integration engineering for ERP and manufacturing systems.
> Section: Free Tools

## Short answer

A document template to audit ERP routings against the real process: sequence, work center, setup and run time, tooling and yield.

## Category

mes-shop-floor

## Audience

- Industrial engineer
- Production planner
- Manufacturing engineer
- ERP administrator

## Tool

**Kind:** template

**Output:** document

**Fields:**

#### Company

**Key:** company

**Type:** text

**Default:** Acme Precision Ltd

#### Plant

**Key:** plant

**Type:** text

**Default:** Plant 1, Machining

#### Auditor

**Key:** auditor

**Type:** text

**Default:** Industrial Engineering

#### Audit date

**Key:** date

**Type:** date

**Default:** 2026-11-05

#### Part or assembly audited

**Key:** part_no

**Type:** text

**Default:** MCH-004217

#### Routing ID and revision

**Key:** routing_id

**Type:** text

**Default:** RTG-004217 Rev C

#### Sample method

**Key:** sample

**Type:** select

**Options:**

- Time study, 5 cycles
- Last 10 completed jobs
- Operator interview
- MES history

**Default:** Last 10 completed jobs

#### Scope notes

**Key:** scope

**Type:** textarea

**Default:** Review operation sequence, work center, setup time, run time per piece, tooling, inspection points and scrap against the last 10 completed work orders.

#### Summary of findings

**Key:** findings

**Type:** textarea

**Default:** Run time on OP30 averages above routing. OP50 deburr is performed at a different work center than routed.

#### Corrective actions

**Key:** actions

**Type:** textarea

**Default:** Update OP30 run time after review with the programmer. Move OP50 to work center DBR-02 and revise the routing.

**Blocks:**

#### Routing Accuracy Audit

**Body:** Company: {{company}}
Plant: {{plant}}
Auditor: {{auditor}}
Date: {{date}}

#### Item under audit

**Body:** Part: {{part_no}}
Routing: {{routing_id}}
Sample method: {{sample}}

#### Scope

**Body:** {{scope}}

#### Operation comparison

**Table:**

**Columns:**

- Op
- Work center (ERP)
- Work center (actual)
- Setup (ERP)
- Setup (actual)
- Run/pc (ERP)
- Run/pc (actual)
- Variance %

**Rows:**

**0:** 10

**0:** 20

**0:** 30

**0:** 40

**0:** 50

#### Checks

**Table:**

**Columns:**

- Check
- Pass
- Fail
- Comment

**Rows:**

**0:** Operation sequence matches the real flow

**0:** Work center and resource group are correct

**0:** Tooling and fixture references are current

**0:** Inspection and sign-off points are routed

**0:** Outside processing steps are included with lead time

**0:** Yield or scrap assumptions match history

#### Findings

**Body:** {{findings}}

#### Corrective actions

**Body:** {{actions}}

#### Approvals

**Signatures:**

- Auditor
- Production supervisor
- Manufacturing engineering
- Planning

**Notes:** Variance percent is (actual - ERP) / ERP x 100 for each time. Many plants investigate variances above 10 percent, but set your own threshold. Decide up front whether routing times represent standard, average or best-demonstrated performance, so you compare like with like.

## Content

**Intro:** Routings drive capacity planning, scheduling, labor cost and promise dates. If setup and run times are wrong, every downstream number is wrong. This template gives industrial engineers and planners a repeatable way to audit a routing against what the shop actually does.

**Sections:**

#### How to use the template

**Body:** Choose a part or family and a sample method: a short time study, recent completed jobs from MES or ERP labor reporting, or operator interviews. Enter the ERP values in the operation comparison table, fill in the actual values, and compute the variance. Complete the checks, then record findings and actions. Export to PDF for sign-off or to Word to continue editing. One audit per high-volume or high-cost routing per year is a practical start.

#### What to compare

**Body:** The key fields are sequence, work center, setup time, run time per piece, tooling, inspection points and yield. Run time per piece should be compared per unit after dividing actual job hours by good quantity. Setup is best compared across several jobs, because one outlier can mislead. Also check outside processing steps, since a missing operation or lead time quietly breaks promised dates even when machine times look right.

**Bullets:**

- Sequence and work center
- Setup and run time
- Tooling and fixtures
- Inspection and sign-off steps
- Yield and scrap assumptions

#### Reading the variance

**Body:** A small positive variance on run time may simply mean normal losses are not in the standard. A large negative variance suggests the routing is padded, which inflates capacity needs and lead times. Where actuals vary a lot between operators, fix the process before changing the standard. After any change, tell planning and costing, because new times change capacity loads and, with standard costing, the next cost roll.

#### Common mistakes

**Body:** Using one lucky or unlucky job as the sample gives a false answer. Mixing prove-out runs with steady production inflates setup. Updating the routing without a revision record loses the link to costing and quality history. Auditing only times and not work centers misses cases where the job runs on a different machine class, which distorts capacity planning. Close each audit by assigning a named owner for every action.

**Cta:** If you want routing times compared to actual labor and machine history automatically, we can build a read-only comparison on your ERP and MES data, kept on-prem if required.

**Faq:**

#### How often should routings be audited?

**Answer:** Audit high-volume and high-cost routings at least yearly, and any routing after a significant process or equipment change. Low-volume parts can be sampled. Automated variance reports from MES or ERP labor data help flag outliers between audits.

#### What variance should trigger a routing update?

**Answer:** Many plants investigate when average actual time differs from the routing by more than about 10 percent over a meaningful sample. Choose a threshold that fits your cost of error and keep it consistent across audits.

#### Should routing times be standard or actual?

**Answer:** It depends on the use. Scheduling usually wants realistic average times, while standard costing may want an engineered standard. Decide and document which one your routing holds, then audit against that definition.

#### Does a routing change affect product cost?

**Answer:** Yes. Changing setup or run time changes planned labor and overhead absorption. With standard costing, the effect shows after the next cost roll. Coordinate with finance before releasing routing changes in bulk.

## Search terms

routing accuracy audit, routing audit template, ERP routing review checklist, routing times accuracy, setup and run time audit, routing data accuracy manufacturing, routing validation form, routing vs actual time study

---
Talk to an engineer: https://netray.co/contact?intent=erp_ai | Machine catalog: https://netray.co/agent/catalog.json