9.05.701
but we had this issue with version 7. 8. and 9.
Significant variances are being created from
manufacturing jobs (MFG-VAR) when we use MES to record production. Often the
first receipts, MFG-STOCK, do not have unit cost for labor and burden. Material
unit cost is correct and we are issuing the material to the job.
When we use Time and Expense entry, we do not
have MFG-VAR and the cost of the part will flow perfectly to stock.
In the Job Tracker, we have noticed that the
labor transactions for production and set up have an approved or “A†status when
entered through Time and Expense. When entered through MES, the production
labor entries have an “A†status but the set up labor field is blank.
We are set up as follows:
Epicor 10.0.700.3 (testing in 10.1.400.4 and we have the same issue)
Operation/labor Backflushing
MES “Report Quantity” on last operation
“Auto-Receive”, on last operation
Average Cost environment.
Any ideas how to get the costing correct using MES?
What do you have the labor Entry on that operation set at?
Time and Quantity?
Quantity Only?
Backflush?
Sounds like an issue with the setup on your job or operation.
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 5:14 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Costing issues with MES
Significant variances are being created from manufacturing jobs (MFG-VAR) when we use MES to record production. Often the first receipts, MFG-STOCK, do not have unit cost for labor and burden. Material unit cost is correct and we are issuing the material to the job.
When we use Time and Expense entry, we do not have MFG-VAR and the cost of the part will flow perfectly to stock.
In the Job Tracker, we have noticed that the labor transactions for production and set up have an approved or “A†status when entered through Time and Expense. When entered through MES, the production labor entries have an “A†status but the set up labor field is blank.
We are set up as follows:
Epicor 10.0.700.3 (testing in 10.1.400.4 and we have the same issue)
Operation/labor Backflushing
MES "Report Quantity" on last operation
"Auto-Receive", on last operation
Average Cost environment.
Any ideas how to get the costing correct using MES?
The last operation is quantity only. All prior are back flush. The first operation generally has set up. In MES, they log in, start production, enter count and then end activity.
Here are some of the pre-reqs for back flushing at Quantity reporting.
• The part must be coded as backflush
• The part must have a primary warehouse and primary bin.
• The material requirement must be attached to a job operation or have a related operation.
• The operation must have a labor quantity reported against it.
• Labor entry must be accurate and timely.
• Serial number controlled, lot controlled, or dimensionally controlled inventory cannot be backflushed.
This will help if the variance is coming from part backflushing…you could still have an issue with backflushing labor.
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 4:06 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Costing issues with MES
The last operation is quantity only. All prior are back flush. The first operation generally has set up. In MES, they log in, start production, enter count and then end activity.
Costing issues with MES
Expand Messages
- View Source
- 0 Attachment
Significant variances are being created from manufacturing jobs (MFG-VAR) when we use MES to record production. Often the first receipts, MFG-STOCK, do not have unit cost for labor and burden. Material unit cost is correct and we are issuing the material to the job.
When we use Time and Expense entry, we do not have MFG-VAR and the cost of the part will flow perfectly to stock.
In the Job Tracker, we have noticed that the labor transactions for production and set up have an approved or “A†status when entered through Time and Expense. When entered through MES, the production labor entries have an “A†status but the set up labor field is blank.
We are set up as follows:
Epicor 10.0.700.3 (testing in 10.1.400.4 and we have the same issue)Operation/labor Backflushing
MES "Report Quantity" on last operation
"Auto-Receive", on last operation
Average Cost environment.
Any ideas how to get the costing correct using MES?
Your issues are not in your set up. Your issues are Epicor. We have had this issue for many years. When I have discussed this with Epicor contacts, they are not at all surprised about the issue, in fact they seem as if it is expected. (I'll stop there before I go off on a rant, I'll get back to the subject). The problem is how Epicor has written the program. Because you are using backflush with auto receipt, the program is not finishing the backflush prior to auto receipting. Thus, when it finally does backflush, it sees that you already transferred the part (to stock, to job, to ship) and treats then the backflush costs as variance. That makes sense to your situation because you said material costs were correct, but you also said you issued the material (so no backflush). It also makes sense because you said when you record labor through time entry, it's correct (no backflush). Only though MES is it back flushing with auto receipt, thus as I explained, it completes the auto receipt before the back flushing occurs, thus the variances.
We have spent tremendous hours and cost trying to fix this on our own through customizations, knowing it would take Epicor years and years to even admit this is core deficiency in their programming. We have tried to schedule the backflush at minute intervals, did not work. We have tried BPM's to try and kick off a backflush on each job (there are many ways to initiate a backflush, i.e. open job in job closing, run a production detail report, etc..) that did not work. We tried many scenarios. What eventually worked (with huge amounts of time and testing), we wrote custom scripts that basically interrupts the auto receipt, delays it (a lot of testing to get the timing down) but the delay can be up to 15 minutes, before then it allows the backflush to occur. This created other issues we then had to work on that I won't get into, but we then had issues when the auto receipt was job to job (was the upper level job scanned and back flushed prior to the now delayed auto receipt?) We also ran into problems with temp table build ups that caused the custom program to spin continuously, etc.. (Just things then that we had to tweek and re-write)
I'm a finance guy, not an IT guy so hopefully you get the concept.
Chris Berger
Controller
Dorner Mfg Corp
Good morning Chris,
What version are you on? We auto receipt the last operation. Our material is typically back flushed at quantity complete at first operation. Did you test similar scenarios? While our job costs “appear†to be rolling properly, we are currently experiencing severe issues with Build Project Analysis. No successful solutions yet from Epicor. Grasping for straws of what might be impacting.
Thanks,
Ron
Ron Brown
Process Manager
Tank Connection
3609 N. 16th St.
Parsons, KS 67357
Office: 620-423-3010 ext. 158
Email: rbrown@...<mailto:rbrown@...>
[http://www.tankconnection.com/sig/tc.png%5d<http://www.tankconnection.com>
[http://www.tankconnection.com/sig/tcli.png%5d <https://www.linkedin.com/company/tank-connection-affiliate-group?trk=nav_account_sub_nav_company_admin> [http://www.tankconnection.com/sig/tcfb.png%5d <http://facebook.com/tankconnection> [http://www.tankconnection.com/sig/tctw.png%5d <http://twitter.com/TankConnection> [http://www.tankconnection.com/sig/tcyt.png%5d <http://youtube.com/user/TankConnection> [http://www.tankconnection.com/sig/tcgp.png%5d <https://plus.google.com/u/0/+TankConnectionParsons/posts>
________________________________
NOTICE: This email and any attachments are considered confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender as soon as possible and delete this email. If you are not the intended addressee, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited by law.
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 9:19 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Re: Costing issues with MES
Costing issues with MES
Expand Messages
* havalot2day
Significant variances are being created from manufacturing jobs (MFG-VAR) when we use MES to record production. Often the first receipts, MFG-STOCK, do not
Message 1 of 4 , Mar 22 4:14 PM
View Source
* 0 Attachment
*
Significant variances are being created from manufacturing jobs (MFG-VAR) when we use MES to record production. Often the first receipts, MFG-STOCK, do not have unit cost for labor and burden. Material unit cost is correct and we are issuing the material to the job.
When we use Time and Expense entry, we do not have MFG-VAR and the cost of the part will flow perfectly to stock.
In the Job Tracker, we have noticed that the labor transactions for production and set up have an approved or “A†status when entered through Time and Expense. When entered through MES, the production labor entries have an “A†status but the set up labor field is blank.
We are set up as follows:
Epicor 10.0.700.3 (testing in 10.1.400.4 and we have the same issue)
Operation/labor Backflushing
MES "Report Quantity" on last operation
"Auto-Receive", on last operation
Average Cost environment.
Any ideas how to get the costing correct using MES?
Your issues are not in your set up. Your issues are Epicor. We have had this issue for many years. When I have discussed this with Epicor contacts, they are not at all surprised about the issue, in fact they seem as if it is expected. (I'll stop there before I go off on a rant, I'll get back to the subject). The problem is how Epicor has written the program. Because you are using backflush with auto receipt, the program is not finishing the backflush prior to auto receipting. Thus, when it finally does backflush, it sees that you already transferred the part (to stock, to job, to ship) and treats then the backflush costs as variance. That makes sense to your situation because you said material costs were correct, but you also said you issued the material (so no backflush). It also makes sense because you said when you record labor through time entry, it's correct (no backflush). Only though MES is it back flushing with auto receipt, thus as I explained, it completes the auto receipt before the back flushing occurs, thus the variances.
We have spent tremendous hours and cost trying to fix this on our own through customizations, knowing it would take Epicor years and years to even admit this is core deficiency in their programming. We have tried to schedule the backflush at minute intervals, did not work. We have tried BPM's to try and kick off a backflush on each job (there are many ways to initiate a backflush, i.e. open job in job closing, run a production detail report, etc..) that did not work. We tried many scenarios. What eventually worked (with huge amounts of time and testing), we wrote custom scripts that basically interrupts the auto receipt, delays it (a lot of testing to get the timing down) but the delay can be up to 15 minutes, before then it allows the backflush to occur. This created other issues we then had to work on that I won't get into, but we then had issues when the auto receipt was job to job (was the upper level job scanned and back flushed prior to the now delayed auto receipt?) We also ran into problems with temp table build ups that caused the custom program to spin continuously, etc.. (Just things then that we had to tweek and re-write)
I'm a finance guy, not an IT guy so hopefully you get the concept.
Chris Berger
Controller
Dorner Mfg Corp
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
What version are you on? We auto receipt the last operation. Our material is typically back flushed at quantity complete at first operation. Did you test similar scenarios? While our job costs “appear†to be rolling properly, we are currently experiencing severe issues with Build Project Analysis. No successful solutions yet from Epicor. Grasping for straws of what might be impacting.
Thanks,
Ron
Ron Brown
Process Manager
Tank Connection
3609 N. 16th St.
Parsons, KS 67357
Office: 620-423-3010 ext. 158
Email: rbrown@...<mailto:rbrown@...>
[http://www.tankconnection.com/sig/tc.png%5d<http://www.tankconnection.com>
[http://www.tankconnection.com/sig/tcli.png%5d <https://www.linkedin.com/company/tank-connection-affiliate-group?trk=nav_account_sub_nav_company_admin> [http://www.tankconnection.com/sig/tcfb.png%5d <http://facebook.com/tankconnection> [http://www.tankconnection.com/sig/tctw.png%5d <http://twitter.com/TankConnection> [http://www.tankconnection.com/sig/tcyt.png%5d <http://youtube.com/user/TankConnection> [http://www.tankconnection.com/sig/tcgp.png%5d <https://plus.google.com/u/0/+TankConnectionParsons/posts>
________________________________
NOTICE: This email and any attachments are considered confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender as soon as possible and delete this email. If you are not the intended addressee, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited by law.
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 9:19 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Re: Costing issues with MES
Costing issues with MES
Expand Messages
* havalot2day
Significant variances are being created from manufacturing jobs (MFG-VAR) when we use MES to record production. Often the first receipts, MFG-STOCK, do not
Message 1 of 4 , Mar 22 4:14 PM
View Source
* 0 Attachment
*
Significant variances are being created from manufacturing jobs (MFG-VAR) when we use MES to record production. Often the first receipts, MFG-STOCK, do not have unit cost for labor and burden. Material unit cost is correct and we are issuing the material to the job.
When we use Time and Expense entry, we do not have MFG-VAR and the cost of the part will flow perfectly to stock.
In the Job Tracker, we have noticed that the labor transactions for production and set up have an approved or “A†status when entered through Time and Expense. When entered through MES, the production labor entries have an “A†status but the set up labor field is blank.
We are set up as follows:
Epicor 10.0.700.3 (testing in 10.1.400.4 and we have the same issue)
Operation/labor Backflushing
MES "Report Quantity" on last operation
"Auto-Receive", on last operation
Average Cost environment.
Any ideas how to get the costing correct using MES?
Your issues are not in your set up. Your issues are Epicor. We have had this issue for many years. When I have discussed this with Epicor contacts, they are not at all surprised about the issue, in fact they seem as if it is expected. (I'll stop there before I go off on a rant, I'll get back to the subject). The problem is how Epicor has written the program. Because you are using backflush with auto receipt, the program is not finishing the backflush prior to auto receipting. Thus, when it finally does backflush, it sees that you already transferred the part (to stock, to job, to ship) and treats then the backflush costs as variance. That makes sense to your situation because you said material costs were correct, but you also said you issued the material (so no backflush). It also makes sense because you said when you record labor through time entry, it's correct (no backflush). Only though MES is it back flushing with auto receipt, thus as I explained, it completes the auto receipt before the back flushing occurs, thus the variances.
We have spent tremendous hours and cost trying to fix this on our own through customizations, knowing it would take Epicor years and years to even admit this is core deficiency in their programming. We have tried to schedule the backflush at minute intervals, did not work. We have tried BPM's to try and kick off a backflush on each job (there are many ways to initiate a backflush, i.e. open job in job closing, run a production detail report, etc..) that did not work. We tried many scenarios. What eventually worked (with huge amounts of time and testing), we wrote custom scripts that basically interrupts the auto receipt, delays it (a lot of testing to get the timing down) but the delay can be up to 15 minutes, before then it allows the backflush to occur. This created other issues we then had to work on that I won't get into, but we then had issues when the auto receipt was job to job (was the upper level job scanned and back flushed prior to the now delayed auto receipt?) We also ran into problems with temp table build ups that caused the custom program to spin continuously, etc.. (Just things then that we had to tweek and re-write)
I'm a finance guy, not an IT guy so hopefully you get the concept.
Chris Berger
Controller
Dorner Mfg Corp
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
We can run 2 identical jobs, one Time and Expense and the
other MES, and the Time and Expense costs roll perfectly but not MES. Both are
quantity only at the final operation, auto receipt to stock and Backflushing
labor.
In another department we are using MES successfully with
perfect cost roll and the same quantity only, backflush of labor & auto
receipt to stock. The differences are that in the department where MES is
working, we record production when complete and only have one receipt to stock.
In the department where the cost is not rolling correctly, we have multiple
receipts to stock and have set-up labor which is approved in Time and Expense
but not in MES. These are observations and not necessarily the cause.
It may be Epicor programing is different for Time and Expense
vs. MES and allowing time for backflush of labor before the auto receipt to
stock.
J Savastio
Controller
Remke Industries, Inc.