[6.10.543] based comments....
The basic logic as detailed in the printed data dictionary seems to be correct to us. The problem (in our version/patch) is that there is a bug in the way Vantage calculates it. I have several employee utilization reports that self calculate the earned hours EXACTLY as the formula, both in the dicitonary and in documents from Epicor Support, and then compare to the Vantage figure and they are often different. Not always....but as much as 20% of the time. No apparent pattern.
I sent our DB to Support, as well as a bunch of reports and the comparison detailed above, and they could not find a cause. In once case an employee on one day worked exactly eight hours and produced almost exactly the number of parts as staed in the standard. Earned hours according the formula should have been almost exactly eight. BUT....the Vantage calculated figure was 14. Not double but nearly so.
Support had a theory that the Vantage calculation may have been getting affected by labor editing. We often have direct hours total not quite the clocking hours (like 7.96 vs. 8) and people in the office even out the fractions of time between clocking on & off jobs. Support said I would have to prove a case that involved no editing....even though even WITH the editing causing the issue it would still be a bug anyway. Being on 6.10 I know it will never get fixed in this version so I gave up beating my head against the wall and just use the calculation from the book.
There should be no excuse for this still happening in 8.03.4xx (if it is) because they've known there was a problem for a long time.
-Todd C.
________________________________
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jessi Utecht
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 2:23 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Calculating Earned Hours
Can someone explain the logic for calculating earned hours?
The help text does not seem to explain this very well and it seems as though we are having some calculation errors and it is causing our efficiencies to be incorrect.
Could someone help?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The basic logic as detailed in the printed data dictionary seems to be correct to us. The problem (in our version/patch) is that there is a bug in the way Vantage calculates it. I have several employee utilization reports that self calculate the earned hours EXACTLY as the formula, both in the dicitonary and in documents from Epicor Support, and then compare to the Vantage figure and they are often different. Not always....but as much as 20% of the time. No apparent pattern.
I sent our DB to Support, as well as a bunch of reports and the comparison detailed above, and they could not find a cause. In once case an employee on one day worked exactly eight hours and produced almost exactly the number of parts as staed in the standard. Earned hours according the formula should have been almost exactly eight. BUT....the Vantage calculated figure was 14. Not double but nearly so.
Support had a theory that the Vantage calculation may have been getting affected by labor editing. We often have direct hours total not quite the clocking hours (like 7.96 vs. 8) and people in the office even out the fractions of time between clocking on & off jobs. Support said I would have to prove a case that involved no editing....even though even WITH the editing causing the issue it would still be a bug anyway. Being on 6.10 I know it will never get fixed in this version so I gave up beating my head against the wall and just use the calculation from the book.
There should be no excuse for this still happening in 8.03.4xx (if it is) because they've known there was a problem for a long time.
-Todd C.
________________________________
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jessi Utecht
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 2:23 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Calculating Earned Hours
Can someone explain the logic for calculating earned hours?
The help text does not seem to explain this very well and it seems as though we are having some calculation errors and it is causing our efficiencies to be incorrect.
Could someone help?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]