And the inspection was done? Double check the non-conformance record for
the PO receipt and then make sure it's not stuck in DMR.
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of stanchmura
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 11:43 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Subcontract PO Receipts
I'm running 6.1. Recently I've noticed that subcontract costs are
missing from some jobs. The transaction history for the part should
be PUR-INS then INS-SUB, then MFG-STK. However, the INS-SUB is
missing but I cannot determine why. I compared earlier POs and Jobs
where the subcontract costing on the job was correct, but could not
find any differences in the PO for Inspection requirements or job
links. The jobs were created from the same Revision/Methods master,
so they too were identical. My theory is that there was something
different in the PO receipt, but the person doing it swears that they
were done exactly the same. Has anyone encountered this or have an
idea what may have gone wrong?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
the PO receipt and then make sure it's not stuck in DMR.
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of stanchmura
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 11:43 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Subcontract PO Receipts
I'm running 6.1. Recently I've noticed that subcontract costs are
missing from some jobs. The transaction history for the part should
be PUR-INS then INS-SUB, then MFG-STK. However, the INS-SUB is
missing but I cannot determine why. I compared earlier POs and Jobs
where the subcontract costing on the job was correct, but could not
find any differences in the PO for Inspection requirements or job
links. The jobs were created from the same Revision/Methods master,
so they too were identical. My theory is that there was something
different in the PO receipt, but the person doing it swears that they
were done exactly the same. Has anyone encountered this or have an
idea what may have gone wrong?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]