Missing Costs on production received into inventory

Yahoo Archive
1
One more thing to keep in mind is the average cost shown in part tracker (and yes, it will calculate even if the part is on standard cost) is the average cost of the parts in inventory. It is not the average of the cost of the whole history of receipt to stock transactions to date.

That's why my most meaningful reviews are of the average part costs in closed jobs. Simple reports but also easily seen in part advisor (again, Vantage 6.1) under 'Have I Run it Before?'. Very nice to just scroll down the closed jobs and see the ups and downs of the various cost segments that made up the total for each job (ie: material, labor, subcontract. burden) to get a good feel for what's going on. Drill down for more info when you want more info, etc..

Greg


----- Original Message -----
From: Rob Bucek
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 3:00 PM
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Re: Missing Costs on production received into inventory


That's our experience as well. Especially with costing and how it flows
through invoicing and to the GL. I spent a lot of time putting controls
in place to make sure ops are claimed materials issued etc etc before
items are receipted to inventory or shipped. It has been very effective
in getting us to that next level of operating in our system in 'real
time' or as events on the flow occur, they happen in the system as close
to real time as possible. It sure was effective at driving changes to
the root cause. Apply a little pressure here and...

Rob Bucek

Manufacturing Engineer

PH: 715-284-5376 ext 311

FAX: 715-284-4084

<http://www.dsmfg.com/>

(Click the logo to view our site)

________________________________

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Stan Chmura
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 2:47 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Re: Missing Costs on production received into
inventory

FWIW, I think Greg's assessment is right ion the money. Back in 1999
when
we were setting up Vantage our Data Works (now known as Epicor)
consultant
prescribed what he called POO. (Point Of Occurrence). Like it sounds, he
recommended that transactions in Vantage be recorded as close to the
point
of occurrence as possible. E.g. when material is taken from the shelf in
inventory, the issue from Vantage should be done then, not the next
morning.
Similar with all transactions. The closer the transaction entry is to
the
actual occurrence, the more accurate your data will be.

_____

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
Behalf Of
gclauser
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 3:34 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Missing Costs on production received into
inventory

Vantage actual cost calculation (at least 6.1) is very sensitive to
timing
issues. If you receive into stock before you enter the labor transaction
or
material issue parts will go into stock with no cost. If you also then
ship
some of these parts from inventory prior to entering labor or material
then
costs really start looking strange.

When we first started on Vantage we did not do the labor entry untill
the
next morning but were receiving parts to stock and often making
shipments
the evening before. Jobs that also backflushed materials would also not
have
material costs. Add the complexity of parts from subcomponent jobs also
being backflush issued before being received into stock and it's a real
mess.

As far as how could there be no cost on the third inventory transaction
I've
seen that also. If after the second receipt to inventory the total
number of
pieces received to stock and the total number of parts completed through
each operation were all the same then there would be no costs left in
the
job. If you then process another receipt to stock from the job before
recording any more labor or material costs then the calculated average
cost
of this last transaction would be $0.00.

That's the main reason I went to both standard cost and shop floor data
collection.

Greg

----- Original Message -----
From: Marty
To: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 1:51 PM
Subject: [Vantage] Re: Missing Costs on production received into
inventory

Robert

I undestand what you are saying and would agree it if it happened on the
very first transaction when we received parts in from a Job. But it
worked
correctly the first two times and even the time after. But not on the
3rd
inventory transaction.

Maybe a bigger questions is how would I notice this if I wasn't looking
at
the part each day as part of a study to understand how last and average
costs works.

Thanks for your help

Marty

--- In vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com,
Robert
Brown <robertb_versa@...> wrote:
>
>
> The received to bin should have nothing to do with it.
>
> Average cost is based on averaging actual Job costs (or actual POs -
AND
actual PO AND Jobs costs if you do mixed mode internal and external
sourcing
for a part on Ave Cost).
>
> Sounds like your job wasn't carry accrued to date of receipt actual
cost
(and unless your issued raw material(s) AND your labor rates or zero,
this
is impossible.... SOME actual cost should have been incurred).
>
> I suspect I know why though:
>
> I can't attest to this (as I've never had to check it out) - but if a
Fab
part is set up a Std Cost and you generate a job, I wouldn't be AT ALL
surprised if the Job is internally set up to only post Std Cost... If
(post
job generation) you change to Ave Cost for the part being made on the
job,
it would not surprise me if these pre-cost method change generated jobs
then
fail to collect and carry an actual receipt cost (in the proper cost
buckets) to blend into the part's average cost.
>
> Vantage's costing system fiasco suggests this to me.
>
> MANY (dare I say MOST) other systems concurrently maintain Last, Std &
Ave
costs concurrently & entirely seperately on an ongoing basis (as it
takes
little overhead to do so & only adds a few fields to each cost related
table) - and it is only your part master (or part class) set up that
actually determines which ONE of these cost model's results are hitting
the
G/L (on many/most non-Vantage systems).
>
> Vantage is not like that. If you specify Std, all job receipt actuals
(and
thus any concurrent Ave cost) end up being equal to Std as the 'actuals'
posted ARE the Std.
>
> This renders useless the practice I've been used to for 25+ years of
setting a Std and then comparing average of true actuals to that
standard on
at regular intervals (giving a very useful Std to Ave variance - and
giving
you a factual basis for making your methods more accurate, being more
diligent upon holding people to meet production standards, or simply to
give
you good information to perhaps make a change to Std Cost).
>
> Vantage's variances (because of the dumb way they set up costing) are,
frankly - useless. ...Nothing more than G/L clutter.
>
> This methodology on Vantage is also the reason you have to be at zero
o/h
in order to truly change cost method for a part. Other systems would let
you
make the change and then provide a means for posting any net asset
revaluation differences to a G/L account.
>
> Not in Vantage though - where EVERYTHING is overcomplicated to still
only
achieve below industry standard & seemingly purposefully limited
results.
>
> Rob
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 4/1/09, Marty <marty1325@...> wrote:
> From: Marty <marty1325@...>
> Subject: [Vantage] Missing Costs on production received into inventory
> To: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
> Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2009, 3:34 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We are doing a study on switching from Standard Costing to Average
Costing
for our company. We took one part # and all the associated material
costs
for this part and switched it from Standard to Average on the system.
>
>
>
> Everything seemed to be working OK, except for the other day when we
received parts from the job into inventory and Vantage didn't assign a
cost
value to the transaction.
>
>
>
> This caused my New Average Cost to be understated now because we added
142
parts to inventory with Zero Value. Plus nothing shows up for Last Cost
in
Part Tracker when you go to the cost tab.
>
>
>
> Any idea how this could happen?
>
>
>
> The only idea we came up with is when the parts were first received
into
inventory they were put in the wrong bin. The person doing it realized
it
right away and moved them from the incorrect bin to the correct bin. We
have
a time stamp on our Part Transaction History Tracker report and the
correction was done less then a minute after it was first received.
>
>
>
> Could this possible be a reason for what happened or is there
something
else I should be looking at. The other times we received parts in from
this
job the costs were charged correctly.
>
>
>
> We are running vantage 8.03.3
>
>
>
> Any help would be appreciated
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Marty
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2
We are doing a study on switching from Standard Costing to Average Costing for our company. We took one part # and all the associated material costs for this part and switched it from Standard to Average on the system.

Everything seemed to be working OK, except for the other day when we received parts from the job into inventory and Vantage didn't assign a cost value to the transaction.

This caused my New Average Cost to be understated now because we added 142 parts to inventory with Zero Value. Plus nothing shows up for Last Cost in Part Tracker when you go to the cost tab.


Any idea how this could happen?

The only idea we came up with is when the parts were first received into inventory they were put in the wrong bin. The person doing it realized it right away and moved them from the incorrect bin to the correct bin. We have a time stamp on our Part Transaction History Tracker report and the correction was done less then a minute after it was first received.

Could this possible be a reason for what happened or is there something else I should be looking at. The other times we received parts in from this job the costs were charged correctly.

We are running vantage 8.03.3

Any help would be appreciated

Thanks.

Marty
3
Moving from one inventory location to another within the same plant
won't change anything. What was the transaction type? Looking at job
tracker or some such thing, were there costs on the job before the time
of receipt? How is the part set up? Make sure that some basic things
like the costing method you expected was set correctly on the part
master etc...



Rob Bucek

Manufacturing Engineer

PH: 715-284-5376 ext 311

FAX: 715-284-4084

<http://www.dsmfg.com/>

(Click the logo to view our site)



________________________________

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Marty
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:34 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Missing Costs on production received into inventory



We are doing a study on switching from Standard Costing to Average
Costing for our company. We took one part # and all the associated
material costs for this part and switched it from Standard to Average on
the system.

Everything seemed to be working OK, except for the other day when we
received parts from the job into inventory and Vantage didn't assign a
cost value to the transaction.

This caused my New Average Cost to be understated now because we added
142 parts to inventory with Zero Value. Plus nothing shows up for Last
Cost in Part Tracker when you go to the cost tab.

Any idea how this could happen?

The only idea we came up with is when the parts were first received into
inventory they were put in the wrong bin. The person doing it realized
it right away and moved them from the incorrect bin to the correct bin.
We have a time stamp on our Part Transaction History Tracker report and
the correction was done less then a minute after it was first received.

Could this possible be a reason for what happened or is there something
else I should be looking at. The other times we received parts in from
this job the costs were charged correctly.

We are running vantage 8.03.3

Any help would be appreciated

Thanks.

Marty





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
4
The received to bin should have nothing to do with it.

Average cost is based on averaging actual Job costs (or actual POs - AND actual PO AND Jobs costs if you do mixed mode internal and external sourcing for a part on Ave Cost).

Sounds like your job wasn't carry accrued to date of receipt actual cost (and unless your issued raw material(s) AND your labor rates or zero, this is impossible.... SOME actual cost should have been incurred).

I suspect I know why though:

I can't attest to this (as I've never had to check it out) - but if a Fab part is set up a Std Cost and you generate a job, I wouldn't be AT ALL surprised if the Job is internally set up to only post Std Cost... If (post job generation) you change to Ave Cost for the part being made on the job, it would not surprise me if these pre-cost method change generated jobs then fail to collect and carry an actual receipt cost (in the proper cost buckets) to blend into the part's average cost.

Vantage's costing system fiasco suggests this to me.

MANY (dare I say MOST) other systems concurrently maintain Last, Std & Ave costs concurrently & entirely seperately on an ongoing basis (as it takes little overhead to do so & only adds a few fields to each cost related table) - and it is only your part master (or part class) set up that actually determines which ONE of these cost model's results are hitting the G/L (on many/most non-Vantage systems).

Vantage is not like that. If you specify Std, all job receipt actuals (and thus any concurrent Ave cost) end up being equal to Std as the 'actuals' posted ARE the Std.

This renders useless the practice I've been used to for 25+ years of setting a Std and then comparing average of true actuals to that standard on at regular intervals (giving a very useful Std to Ave variance - and giving you a factual basis for making your methods more accurate, being more diligent upon holding people to meet production standards, or simply to give you good information to perhaps make a change to Std Cost).

Vantage's variances (because of the dumb way they set up costing) are, frankly - useless. ...Nothing more than G/L clutter.

This methodology on Vantage is also the reason you have to be at zero o/h in order to truly change cost method for a part. Other systems would let you make the change and then provide a means for posting any net asset revaluation differences to a G/L account.

Not in Vantage though - where EVERYTHING is overcomplicated to still only achieve below industry standard & seemingly purposefully limited results.

Rob





--- On Wed, 4/1/09, Marty <marty1325@...> wrote:
From: Marty <marty1325@...>
Subject: [Vantage] Missing Costs on production received into inventory
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2009, 3:34 PM












We are doing a study on switching from Standard Costing to Average Costing for our company. We took one part # and all the associated material costs for this part and switched it from Standard to Average on the system.



Everything seemed to be working OK, except for the other day when we received parts from the job into inventory and Vantage didn't assign a cost value to the transaction.



This caused my New Average Cost to be understated now because we added 142 parts to inventory with Zero Value. Plus nothing shows up for Last Cost in Part Tracker when you go to the cost tab.



Any idea how this could happen?



The only idea we came up with is when the parts were first received into inventory they were put in the wrong bin. The person doing it realized it right away and moved them from the incorrect bin to the correct bin. We have a time stamp on our Part Transaction History Tracker report and the correction was done less then a minute after it was first received.



Could this possible be a reason for what happened or is there something else I should be looking at. The other times we received parts in from this job the costs were charged correctly.



We are running vantage 8.03.3



Any help would be appreciated



Thanks.



Marty
5
Bob

The move was MFG-STK transfer. This was the 3rd time we received parts into inventory from this job. And the first time that it was received with No Material, Labor or Burden Costs associated with it.
The other 2 times we had Material/Labor/Burden costs charged to inventory based on what it cost us to make the part between the last time we received parts into inventory and the next time.

The MFG Part and all Raw Material parts to make the MFG Part were all changed from Standard to Average Cost before we started the job.

The Job hasn't been marked Complete or Closed if that might have been a reason for no costs to follow the Parts into inventory.

I did have them receive another box of parts into inventory yesterday and Costs did show up on the Part Transactions History Tracker for the 150 parts into inventory and it re calculated the average costs for the part # based on the cost associated with the latest transaction.

So what changed between this time and the last time we received parts into inventory with no cost, I don't know. Other then they were receieved into the Correct Bin from the start.

Marty







--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Rob Bucek" <rbucek@...> wrote:
>
> Moving from one inventory location to another within the same plant
> won't change anything. What was the transaction type? Looking at job
> tracker or some such thing, were there costs on the job before the time
> of receipt? How is the part set up? Make sure that some basic things
> like the costing method you expected was set correctly on the part
> master etc...
>
>
>
> Rob Bucek
>
> Manufacturing Engineer
>
> PH: 715-284-5376 ext 311
>
> FAX: 715-284-4084
>
> <http://www.dsmfg.com/>
>
> (Click the logo to view our site)
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of Marty
> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:34 PM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Vantage] Missing Costs on production received into inventory
>
>
>
> We are doing a study on switching from Standard Costing to Average
> Costing for our company. We took one part # and all the associated
> material costs for this part and switched it from Standard to Average on
> the system.
>
> Everything seemed to be working OK, except for the other day when we
> received parts from the job into inventory and Vantage didn't assign a
> cost value to the transaction.
>
> This caused my New Average Cost to be understated now because we added
> 142 parts to inventory with Zero Value. Plus nothing shows up for Last
> Cost in Part Tracker when you go to the cost tab.
>
> Any idea how this could happen?
>
> The only idea we came up with is when the parts were first received into
> inventory they were put in the wrong bin. The person doing it realized
> it right away and moved them from the incorrect bin to the correct bin.
> We have a time stamp on our Part Transaction History Tracker report and
> the correction was done less then a minute after it was first received.
>
> Could this possible be a reason for what happened or is there something
> else I should be looking at. The other times we received parts in from
> this job the costs were charged correctly.
>
> We are running vantage 8.03.3
>
> Any help would be appreciated
>
> Thanks.
>
> Marty
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
6
Robert

I undestand what you are saying and would agree it if it happened on the very first transaction when we received parts in from a Job. But it worked correctly the first two times and even the time after. But not on the 3rd inventory transaction.

Maybe a bigger questions is how would I notice this if I wasn't looking at the part each day as part of a study to understand how last and average costs works.

Thanks for your help

Marty

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, Robert Brown <robertb_versa@...> wrote:
>
>
> The received to bin should have nothing to do with it.
>
> Average cost is based on averaging actual Job costs (or actual POs - AND actual PO AND Jobs costs if you do mixed mode internal and external sourcing for a part on Ave Cost).
>
> Sounds like your job wasn't carry accrued to date of receipt actual cost (and unless your issued raw material(s) AND your labor rates or zero, this is impossible.... SOME actual cost should have been incurred).
>
> I suspect I know why though:
>
> I can't attest to this (as I've never had to check it out) - but if a Fab part is set up a Std Cost and you generate a job, I wouldn't be AT ALL surprised if the Job is internally set up to only post Std Cost... If (post job generation) you change to Ave Cost for the part being made on the job, it would not surprise me if these pre-cost method change generated jobs then fail to collect and carry an actual receipt cost (in the proper cost buckets) to blend into the part's average cost.
>
> Vantage's costing system fiasco suggests this to me.
>
> MANY (dare I say MOST) other systems concurrently maintain Last, Std & Ave costs concurrently & entirely seperately on an ongoing basis (as it takes little overhead to do so & only adds a few fields to each cost related table) - and it is only your part master (or part class) set up that actually determines which ONE of these cost model's results are hitting the G/L (on many/most non-Vantage systems).
>
> Vantage is not like that. If you specify Std, all job receipt actuals (and thus any concurrent Ave cost) end up being equal to Std as the 'actuals' posted ARE the Std.
>
> This renders useless the practice I've been used to for 25+ years of setting a Std and then comparing average of true actuals to that standard on at regular intervals (giving a very useful Std to Ave variance - and giving you a factual basis for making your methods more accurate, being more diligent upon holding people to meet production standards, or simply to give you good information to perhaps make a change to Std Cost).
>
> Vantage's variances (because of the dumb way they set up costing) are, frankly - useless. ...Nothing more than G/L clutter.
>
> This methodology on Vantage is also the reason you have to be at zero o/h in order to truly change cost method for a part. Other systems would let you make the change and then provide a means for posting any net asset revaluation differences to a G/L account.
>
> Not in Vantage though - where EVERYTHING is overcomplicated to still only achieve below industry standard & seemingly purposefully limited results.
>
> Rob
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 4/1/09, Marty <marty1325@...> wrote:
> From: Marty <marty1325@...>
> Subject: [Vantage] Missing Costs on production received into inventory
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2009, 3:34 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We are doing a study on switching from Standard Costing to Average Costing for our company. We took one part # and all the associated material costs for this part and switched it from Standard to Average on the system.
>
>
>
> Everything seemed to be working OK, except for the other day when we received parts from the job into inventory and Vantage didn't assign a cost value to the transaction.
>
>
>
> This caused my New Average Cost to be understated now because we added 142 parts to inventory with Zero Value. Plus nothing shows up for Last Cost in Part Tracker when you go to the cost tab.
>
>
>
> Any idea how this could happen?
>
>
>
> The only idea we came up with is when the parts were first received into inventory they were put in the wrong bin. The person doing it realized it right away and moved them from the incorrect bin to the correct bin. We have a time stamp on our Part Transaction History Tracker report and the correction was done less then a minute after it was first received.
>
>
>
> Could this possible be a reason for what happened or is there something else I should be looking at. The other times we received parts in from this job the costs were charged correctly.
>
>
>
> We are running vantage 8.03.3
>
>
>
> Any help would be appreciated
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Marty
>
7
Vantage actual cost calculation (at least 6.1) is very sensitive to timing issues. If you receive into stock before you enter the labor transaction or material issue parts will go into stock with no cost. If you also then ship some of these parts from inventory prior to entering labor or material then costs really start looking strange.

When we first started on Vantage we did not do the labor entry untill the next morning but were receiving parts to stock and often making shipments the evening before. Jobs that also backflushed materials would also not have material costs. Add the complexity of parts from subcomponent jobs also being backflush issued before being received into stock and it's a real mess.

As far as how could there be no cost on the third inventory transaction I've seen that also. If after the second receipt to inventory the total number of pieces received to stock and the total number of parts completed through each operation were all the same then there would be no costs left in the job. If you then process another receipt to stock from the job before recording any more labor or material costs then the calculated average cost of this last transaction would be $0.00.

That's the main reason I went to both standard cost and shop floor data collection.

Greg


----- Original Message -----
From: Marty
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 1:51 PM
Subject: [Vantage] Re: Missing Costs on production received into inventory


Robert

I undestand what you are saying and would agree it if it happened on the very first transaction when we received parts in from a Job. But it worked correctly the first two times and even the time after. But not on the 3rd inventory transaction.

Maybe a bigger questions is how would I notice this if I wasn't looking at the part each day as part of a study to understand how last and average costs works.

Thanks for your help

Marty

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, Robert Brown <robertb_versa@...> wrote:
>
>
> The received to bin should have nothing to do with it.
>
> Average cost is based on averaging actual Job costs (or actual POs - AND actual PO AND Jobs costs if you do mixed mode internal and external sourcing for a part on Ave Cost).
>
> Sounds like your job wasn't carry accrued to date of receipt actual cost (and unless your issued raw material(s) AND your labor rates or zero, this is impossible.... SOME actual cost should have been incurred).
>
> I suspect I know why though:
>
> I can't attest to this (as I've never had to check it out) - but if a Fab part is set up a Std Cost and you generate a job, I wouldn't be AT ALL surprised if the Job is internally set up to only post Std Cost... If (post job generation) you change to Ave Cost for the part being made on the job, it would not surprise me if these pre-cost method change generated jobs then fail to collect and carry an actual receipt cost (in the proper cost buckets) to blend into the part's average cost.
>
> Vantage's costing system fiasco suggests this to me.
>
> MANY (dare I say MOST) other systems concurrently maintain Last, Std & Ave costs concurrently & entirely seperately on an ongoing basis (as it takes little overhead to do so & only adds a few fields to each cost related table) - and it is only your part master (or part class) set up that actually determines which ONE of these cost model's results are hitting the G/L (on many/most non-Vantage systems).
>
> Vantage is not like that. If you specify Std, all job receipt actuals (and thus any concurrent Ave cost) end up being equal to Std as the 'actuals' posted ARE the Std.
>
> This renders useless the practice I've been used to for 25+ years of setting a Std and then comparing average of true actuals to that standard on at regular intervals (giving a very useful Std to Ave variance - and giving you a factual basis for making your methods more accurate, being more diligent upon holding people to meet production standards, or simply to give you good information to perhaps make a change to Std Cost).
>
> Vantage's variances (because of the dumb way they set up costing) are, frankly - useless. ...Nothing more than G/L clutter.
>
> This methodology on Vantage is also the reason you have to be at zero o/h in order to truly change cost method for a part. Other systems would let you make the change and then provide a means for posting any net asset revaluation differences to a G/L account.
>
> Not in Vantage though - where EVERYTHING is overcomplicated to still only achieve below industry standard & seemingly purposefully limited results.
>
> Rob
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 4/1/09, Marty <marty1325@...> wrote:
> From: Marty <marty1325@...>
> Subject: [Vantage] Missing Costs on production received into inventory
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2009, 3:34 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We are doing a study on switching from Standard Costing to Average Costing for our company. We took one part # and all the associated material costs for this part and switched it from Standard to Average on the system.
>
>
>
> Everything seemed to be working OK, except for the other day when we received parts from the job into inventory and Vantage didn't assign a cost value to the transaction.
>
>
>
> This caused my New Average Cost to be understated now because we added 142 parts to inventory with Zero Value. Plus nothing shows up for Last Cost in Part Tracker when you go to the cost tab.
>
>
>
> Any idea how this could happen?
>
>
>
> The only idea we came up with is when the parts were first received into inventory they were put in the wrong bin. The person doing it realized it right away and moved them from the incorrect bin to the correct bin. We have a time stamp on our Part Transaction History Tracker report and the correction was done less then a minute after it was first received.
>
>
>
> Could this possible be a reason for what happened or is there something else I should be looking at. The other times we received parts in from this job the costs were charged correctly.
>
>
>
> We are running vantage 8.03.3
>
>
>
> Any help would be appreciated
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Marty
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
8
FWIW, I think Greg's assessment is right ion the money. Back in 1999 when
we were setting up Vantage our Data Works (now known as Epicor) consultant
prescribed what he called POO. (Point Of Occurrence). Like it sounds, he
recommended that transactions in Vantage be recorded as close to the point
of occurrence as possible. E.g. when material is taken from the shelf in
inventory, the issue from Vantage should be done then, not the next morning.
Similar with all transactions. The closer the transaction entry is to the
actual occurrence, the more accurate your data will be.



_____

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
gclauser
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 3:34 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Missing Costs on production received into
inventory

Vantage actual cost calculation (at least 6.1) is very sensitive to timing
issues. If you receive into stock before you enter the labor transaction or
material issue parts will go into stock with no cost. If you also then ship
some of these parts from inventory prior to entering labor or material then
costs really start looking strange.

When we first started on Vantage we did not do the labor entry untill the
next morning but were receiving parts to stock and often making shipments
the evening before. Jobs that also backflushed materials would also not have
material costs. Add the complexity of parts from subcomponent jobs also
being backflush issued before being received into stock and it's a real
mess.

As far as how could there be no cost on the third inventory transaction I've
seen that also. If after the second receipt to inventory the total number of
pieces received to stock and the total number of parts completed through
each operation were all the same then there would be no costs left in the
job. If you then process another receipt to stock from the job before
recording any more labor or material costs then the calculated average cost
of this last transaction would be $0.00.

That's the main reason I went to both standard cost and shop floor data
collection.

Greg

----- Original Message -----
From: Marty
To: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 1:51 PM
Subject: [Vantage] Re: Missing Costs on production received into inventory

Robert

I undestand what you are saying and would agree it if it happened on the
very first transaction when we received parts in from a Job. But it worked
correctly the first two times and even the time after. But not on the 3rd
inventory transaction.

Maybe a bigger questions is how would I notice this if I wasn't looking at
the part each day as part of a study to understand how last and average
costs works.

Thanks for your help

Marty

--- In vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com, Robert
Brown <robertb_versa@...> wrote:
>
>
> The received to bin should have nothing to do with it.
>
> Average cost is based on averaging actual Job costs (or actual POs - AND
actual PO AND Jobs costs if you do mixed mode internal and external sourcing
for a part on Ave Cost).
>
> Sounds like your job wasn't carry accrued to date of receipt actual cost
(and unless your issued raw material(s) AND your labor rates or zero, this
is impossible.... SOME actual cost should have been incurred).
>
> I suspect I know why though:
>
> I can't attest to this (as I've never had to check it out) - but if a Fab
part is set up a Std Cost and you generate a job, I wouldn't be AT ALL
surprised if the Job is internally set up to only post Std Cost... If (post
job generation) you change to Ave Cost for the part being made on the job,
it would not surprise me if these pre-cost method change generated jobs then
fail to collect and carry an actual receipt cost (in the proper cost
buckets) to blend into the part's average cost.
>
> Vantage's costing system fiasco suggests this to me.
>
> MANY (dare I say MOST) other systems concurrently maintain Last, Std & Ave
costs concurrently & entirely seperately on an ongoing basis (as it takes
little overhead to do so & only adds a few fields to each cost related
table) - and it is only your part master (or part class) set up that
actually determines which ONE of these cost model's results are hitting the
G/L (on many/most non-Vantage systems).
>
> Vantage is not like that. If you specify Std, all job receipt actuals (and
thus any concurrent Ave cost) end up being equal to Std as the 'actuals'
posted ARE the Std.
>
> This renders useless the practice I've been used to for 25+ years of
setting a Std and then comparing average of true actuals to that standard on
at regular intervals (giving a very useful Std to Ave variance - and giving
you a factual basis for making your methods more accurate, being more
diligent upon holding people to meet production standards, or simply to give
you good information to perhaps make a change to Std Cost).
>
> Vantage's variances (because of the dumb way they set up costing) are,
frankly - useless. ...Nothing more than G/L clutter.
>
> This methodology on Vantage is also the reason you have to be at zero o/h
in order to truly change cost method for a part. Other systems would let you
make the change and then provide a means for posting any net asset
revaluation differences to a G/L account.
>
> Not in Vantage though - where EVERYTHING is overcomplicated to still only
achieve below industry standard & seemingly purposefully limited results.
>
> Rob
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 4/1/09, Marty <marty1325@...> wrote:
> From: Marty <marty1325@...>
> Subject: [Vantage] Missing Costs on production received into inventory
> To: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
> Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2009, 3:34 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We are doing a study on switching from Standard Costing to Average Costing
for our company. We took one part # and all the associated material costs
for this part and switched it from Standard to Average on the system.
>
>
>
> Everything seemed to be working OK, except for the other day when we
received parts from the job into inventory and Vantage didn't assign a cost
value to the transaction.
>
>
>
> This caused my New Average Cost to be understated now because we added 142
parts to inventory with Zero Value. Plus nothing shows up for Last Cost in
Part Tracker when you go to the cost tab.
>
>
>
> Any idea how this could happen?
>
>
>
> The only idea we came up with is when the parts were first received into
inventory they were put in the wrong bin. The person doing it realized it
right away and moved them from the incorrect bin to the correct bin. We have
a time stamp on our Part Transaction History Tracker report and the
correction was done less then a minute after it was first received.
>
>
>
> Could this possible be a reason for what happened or is there something
else I should be looking at. The other times we received parts in from this
job the costs were charged correctly.
>
>
>
> We are running vantage 8.03.3
>
>
>
> Any help would be appreciated
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Marty
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9
That's our experience as well. Especially with costing and how it flows
through invoicing and to the GL. I spent a lot of time putting controls
in place to make sure ops are claimed materials issued etc etc before
items are receipted to inventory or shipped. It has been very effective
in getting us to that next level of operating in our system in 'real
time' or as events on the flow occur, they happen in the system as close
to real time as possible. It sure was effective at driving changes to
the root cause. Apply a little pressure here and...



Rob Bucek

Manufacturing Engineer

PH: 715-284-5376 ext 311

FAX: 715-284-4084

<http://www.dsmfg.com/>

(Click the logo to view our site)



________________________________

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Stan Chmura
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 2:47 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Re: Missing Costs on production received into
inventory



FWIW, I think Greg's assessment is right ion the money. Back in 1999
when
we were setting up Vantage our Data Works (now known as Epicor)
consultant
prescribed what he called POO. (Point Of Occurrence). Like it sounds, he
recommended that transactions in Vantage be recorded as close to the
point
of occurrence as possible. E.g. when material is taken from the shelf in
inventory, the issue from Vantage should be done then, not the next
morning.
Similar with all transactions. The closer the transaction entry is to
the
actual occurrence, the more accurate your data will be.



_____

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
Behalf Of
gclauser
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 3:34 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Missing Costs on production received into
inventory

Vantage actual cost calculation (at least 6.1) is very sensitive to
timing
issues. If you receive into stock before you enter the labor transaction
or
material issue parts will go into stock with no cost. If you also then
ship
some of these parts from inventory prior to entering labor or material
then
costs really start looking strange.

When we first started on Vantage we did not do the labor entry untill
the
next morning but were receiving parts to stock and often making
shipments
the evening before. Jobs that also backflushed materials would also not
have
material costs. Add the complexity of parts from subcomponent jobs also
being backflush issued before being received into stock and it's a real
mess.

As far as how could there be no cost on the third inventory transaction
I've
seen that also. If after the second receipt to inventory the total
number of
pieces received to stock and the total number of parts completed through
each operation were all the same then there would be no costs left in
the
job. If you then process another receipt to stock from the job before
recording any more labor or material costs then the calculated average
cost
of this last transaction would be $0.00.

That's the main reason I went to both standard cost and shop floor data
collection.

Greg

----- Original Message -----
From: Marty
To: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 1:51 PM
Subject: [Vantage] Re: Missing Costs on production received into
inventory

Robert

I undestand what you are saying and would agree it if it happened on the
very first transaction when we received parts in from a Job. But it
worked
correctly the first two times and even the time after. But not on the
3rd
inventory transaction.

Maybe a bigger questions is how would I notice this if I wasn't looking
at
the part each day as part of a study to understand how last and average
costs works.

Thanks for your help

Marty

--- In vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com,
Robert
Brown <robertb_versa@...> wrote:
>
>
> The received to bin should have nothing to do with it.
>
> Average cost is based on averaging actual Job costs (or actual POs -
AND
actual PO AND Jobs costs if you do mixed mode internal and external
sourcing
for a part on Ave Cost).
>
> Sounds like your job wasn't carry accrued to date of receipt actual
cost
(and unless your issued raw material(s) AND your labor rates or zero,
this
is impossible.... SOME actual cost should have been incurred).
>
> I suspect I know why though:
>
> I can't attest to this (as I've never had to check it out) - but if a
Fab
part is set up a Std Cost and you generate a job, I wouldn't be AT ALL
surprised if the Job is internally set up to only post Std Cost... If
(post
job generation) you change to Ave Cost for the part being made on the
job,
it would not surprise me if these pre-cost method change generated jobs
then
fail to collect and carry an actual receipt cost (in the proper cost
buckets) to blend into the part's average cost.
>
> Vantage's costing system fiasco suggests this to me.
>
> MANY (dare I say MOST) other systems concurrently maintain Last, Std &
Ave
costs concurrently & entirely seperately on an ongoing basis (as it
takes
little overhead to do so & only adds a few fields to each cost related
table) - and it is only your part master (or part class) set up that
actually determines which ONE of these cost model's results are hitting
the
G/L (on many/most non-Vantage systems).
>
> Vantage is not like that. If you specify Std, all job receipt actuals
(and
thus any concurrent Ave cost) end up being equal to Std as the 'actuals'
posted ARE the Std.
>
> This renders useless the practice I've been used to for 25+ years of
setting a Std and then comparing average of true actuals to that
standard on
at regular intervals (giving a very useful Std to Ave variance - and
giving
you a factual basis for making your methods more accurate, being more
diligent upon holding people to meet production standards, or simply to
give
you good information to perhaps make a change to Std Cost).
>
> Vantage's variances (because of the dumb way they set up costing) are,
frankly - useless. ...Nothing more than G/L clutter.
>
> This methodology on Vantage is also the reason you have to be at zero
o/h
in order to truly change cost method for a part. Other systems would let
you
make the change and then provide a means for posting any net asset
revaluation differences to a G/L account.
>
> Not in Vantage though - where EVERYTHING is overcomplicated to still
only
achieve below industry standard & seemingly purposefully limited
results.
>
> Rob
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 4/1/09, Marty <marty1325@...> wrote:
> From: Marty <marty1325@...>
> Subject: [Vantage] Missing Costs on production received into inventory
> To: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
> Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2009, 3:34 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We are doing a study on switching from Standard Costing to Average
Costing
for our company. We took one part # and all the associated material
costs
for this part and switched it from Standard to Average on the system.
>
>
>
> Everything seemed to be working OK, except for the other day when we
received parts from the job into inventory and Vantage didn't assign a
cost
value to the transaction.
>
>
>
> This caused my New Average Cost to be understated now because we added
142
parts to inventory with Zero Value. Plus nothing shows up for Last Cost
in
Part Tracker when you go to the cost tab.
>
>
>
> Any idea how this could happen?
>
>
>
> The only idea we came up with is when the parts were first received
into
inventory they were put in the wrong bin. The person doing it realized
it
right away and moved them from the incorrect bin to the correct bin. We
have
a time stamp on our Part Transaction History Tracker report and the
correction was done less then a minute after it was first received.
>
>
>
> Could this possible be a reason for what happened or is there
something
else I should be looking at. The other times we received parts in from
this
job the costs were charged correctly.
>
>
>
> We are running vantage 8.03.3
>
>
>
> Any help would be appreciated
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Marty
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]