So I’m trying to figure out what the costing workbench is doing. I did our first cost roll up ever the other day, looks like things are fine. Now, I want to be able to roll up new parts periodically without having to roll up all of the parts every time.
I noticed there wasn’t a good selection filter to get only new manufactured parts, but noticed that I could do a BAQ search, so I made a BAQ that looks for parts with a 0 in all standard costs and has at least one operation (meaning it’s at least been processed by us manufacturing engineers). That give me a list of 128 part numbers. Looks good to me.
Then I go to the filter in the load parts, it finds the parts, then I load them. Then I go to search manufactured parts and there are 804 parts load in. Why is that? Does it just have to load parts to go with it or something?
So then do I just need to filter on what parts I post to make sure I only touch the 128 that I need?
I’m really disappointed with how the cost rollup works and how confusing it is to use. I don’t understand why this screen has to be so cryptic.
I that a question or an answer? I’m asking if someone understands and can explain the behavior of why it brings in extra parts. Is this normal or am I doing something incorrectly?
Not knowing your environment, but knowing EPICOR…
when standard-costs are updated, the system will explode MOM at level 0 to pick up the goz-in-ta’s
(ie: things below level 0 that goes-in-to-level 0… and things below level 1, that go into level 1 etc.)
Simple Engineering design through the MOM-hierarchy-tree.
YOU need to review your data.
Presuming a part has multiple levels, the non-level-0 parts should be in the costing workbench.
Level 0 123-xx
Level 1 ab-11-thing xx-37-rt
Level 2 www-I-go-into-a-xx-37-rt
Ergo, the cost of 123-xx consists of Level 0 , level 1, level 2
Share your findings
(plz don’t bite the hand that feeds u)
So I scaled back my selection to a single top level part to better understand what was happening. The selection bring in all lower level parts (like Joe suggested) the “linked” column apparently is showing which parts were brought in extra since there is only one part (the top level part) that doesn’t have the link box checked ( it would be nice if that was explained in the help files). I checked the rows with a master BOM query and the number of parts in the costing workbench is the same as the number of unique part in this small assembly (76). I imagine that this will get harder to really see what’s going on when I bring in more that one top level that may or may not share lower level parts.
Going forward, I think that I’m probably better off just doing the cost rollup for top level part numbers on jobs and letting the system grab the lower levels for me instead of trying to search for each specific part that needs to be rolled up. This will still lead to extra cost adjustments that don’t need to be made without better selection tools created (for example there will be steel that would end up be posted every week that doesn’t need to be adjusted that often) so I will work on creating an advanced search dashboard to look at only parts that are in the cost set so I can filter out what is being posted to reduce unnecessary transactions.
My Process for individual cost rollup is just do it via Cost Adjustment rather than Costing workbench.
created a BAQ and converted into a crystal report for me to run to show me all part revs that are approved within a date range which as $0 standard cost.
Take those parts and run Indented level Routing (method master report). If top level and lower level mfg parts all have routings then:
Run Indented BOM Cost Report (horrible generic report, needed to create custom crystal report for this) and make sure all the “Purchase” components have a cost. At the end of the report, it will give you what the “What if” cost is if rolled up. Copy that cost and loaded it into Epicor via “Cost Adjustment”. In this way only top level cost is loaded and lower levels are not updated like costing workbench.
We usually run mass cost roll of all parts once a year for which we use the Costing workbench.
Presume U are E-10, since the entry u posted is in this forum (duh - on my part)
E-10 does have some decent (nice) features
Screen path - PART SITES DETAIL multi-level CTP (should be checked for all MFG parts)
Engineering workbench evaluate PLAN as ASSEMBLY (slick!) ‘shud be checked’ - you can update this check-box per data-tables with SQL
When # 1 is done… Engineering > Gen Ops > MFG Lead Time Calculation
this can be run by “PART” or ‘SITE’ via filter and/or PRODUCT CODE
It will generate a ‘soft’ CTP [Capable To Promise] fields on lower section of
Part Sites Planning within Manufacturing Lead time area
WARNING: If multi-level CTP is not checked on all parts (see #1) then ALL levels of a part are not analyzed
So as an example, run this for a Part and you will get a ‘soft’ number for
Cumulative time (ie: multi-level ) and for THis Level
Let’s presume level 0, 1,2,3
If this part is the level 2 part… and level 3 was 3 days… this level might be 2, but cumulative wud be 5
Level 0’s cumulative might be 10 (I call this a soft number)
THe number is soft, as EPICOR is designed per stockable inventory levels at 0,1,2,3
and expects availability and smooth production processing (based on run, queue times, move times, etc)
Presuming the number at level zero was “10” …you’d ask production and they might dsay, more like 15!
So… check the manual check-box… update numbers accordingly
Next… display a POP-up window if SALES ENTRY is inputting a delivery-date less-than the Manual # of days, if no-stock is available. Sales can also run ATP (rt-clk) part field, but they may not.
When a Sales-delivery date violates the CTP days, BAQ report to PRODUCTION and Purchasing (if RAW material is often quite unique!)
~ ~
Also if you are STD-COST… any laxities in data per cost such as zero cost on a NEW Purchased part ) will mess-up std-cost numbers.
A) Engineering makes a new MOM, it has a new raw-mtl
B) if they approve the rev with no cost on this purchased part, std-cost is WRONG
C) Eng should run a costed-BOM prior to any part approval
D) tricky… until you receive the new-raw-mtl… last and avg cost will be zero
ASAP purchasing receiving a price-quote… finance should execute a cost-adj (there is nothing in inventory!) so no financial impact!
Expected unit cost gets entered…
E) now engineering could approve the rev and run a costed BOM
F) then a std-cost-roll cud be performed!
Additionally… if there is ANY OSP on the job… the expected unit cost needs to be in the MOM, or the std-cost will be wrong.
Saw the other POST about going directly into CST ADJ for a std-cost roll…
Wud seem to work (suggest using a reason code that properly identifies), but u need assurances of raw-mat and OSP pricing!!
I’m doing some experimenting in Pilot with what get’s posted when. You can put a filter on which parts get posted and it looks like it’s honoring that selection filter exactly (unlike the load parts filter). I loaded in a single assembly, and epicor brings in all of the parts like previously stated. Then I roll up everything that’s been loaded. Next when I go to post, I only posted the one top level part number, and it didn’t change any other parts. I also noticed that if the costs didn’t change that an adjustment doesn’t show in part tran, (which is nice actually) so to make sure that I wasn’t seeing that effect instead of the filter acting like I wanted, I tweaked the labor rate way up so that a lot of parts had a change in cost. I then re-ran rollup for the whole set and and posted just for my one top level part, and it only made the change on the one part, and not to any of the lower level parts.
I made a BAQ to look at the current standard on the PartCost table, and compares it to the rolled up costs in my cost set. I also am getting the last date a cost adjustment was made. My plan is to put this into a dashboard and use it for an advanced part search so that I can select only parts that haven’t had an adjustment in x (to be determined) number of days and have a cost difference higher than y% (again to be determined). This should cut down on excessive part cost adjustments and processing time to accomplish them, and still be relatively accurate.
short post (I promise)
In company config on the Production Sheet
there is a check-box “Enable MFG Cost elements”
not checking it will roll all lower level costs into the level-part directly above that level as bundledinto-MATERIAL costs!
Checking it… each lower level cost element (Matl, Labor, Mat-bur, Burden, Sub-con, rounding) get rolled to each specific cost-element)
When using Costing workbench, the system rolls up material, labor, burden, subcontract costs even if the part is coded as “Purchase Part” but if it has a method. In order to prevent purchase parts from rolling up as mfg part, you would need to check to box “Skip Revision Cost Rollup” under Site Cost maintenance.
We had issues when i cost rolled before where some of our purchase part had labor/burden costs on them after a cost roll. Finally figured out Epicor does not care if it’s coded purchase. if the part have a method, it rolls it up. I notice this feature in E10 to prevent purchase parts from rolling up.
Yeah, we already went through finding the issues of “enable MFG cost elements” and the “Skip Revision Cost Rollup”. It was messing up the Method tracker view costs well before I tried to get into the costing workbench. That was a long and frustrating support call until someone finally pointed me to that check box and it fixed what I wanted fixed.
