One might argue that is correct. If you are standard, that’s the only thing that matters. For that Cost ID/Plant, Last (and Average) are calculated only when something is received, and nothing has been received yet.
Do the missing parts not have a Site/Part relationship?
I agree here. I’m used to other ERP systems stopping the roll up at a buy part whether or not it has a method.
Yes, you are correct about that.
The tooling for setting up a new site is fine. The process of trying to move non-standard costs to a plant that used to be a part of another site is definitely a miserable process and I wonder if it happens enough for Epicor to add tooling for it. Maybe add Average/Last/FIFO stuff to CostPart?
Well, this is just lazy programming, I suppose, but I love having Last Cost columns in the same table as the Standard Cost columns. My users often want to know both.
This was 2 years ago, so I can’t guarantee what I researched. But this statement makes it sound like I was comparing [number of rows in PartPlant for MfgSys site] to [number of rows in PartCost for the new CostID]. And they were 3,000 apart (well 8,000 at first).
But doesn’t zero mean, “You haven’t received any at this site yet, so there isn’t an average/last/lot cost.”? All of these costs are not updated with buy direct either.
Now, last PURCHASED price is an entirely different thing, and yes we do want to know what that is.
No doubt, keeping costs by site can get complicated very quickly!!!
Just to address the point about DMT:
Yes, there is a Cost Adjustment DMT, but …
(1) Don’t necessarily want to create all those PartTran records, and
(2) Don’t want to necessarily want to post to GL if that’s the active Costing Method.
