I have just run across an inconsistency in the Bill of material Cost Report. My supervisor ran the report and got 14 pages. He noticed a part was missing. He asked me to look into it so I ran the report and got 16 pages. The "missing " part was there. I have a printed copy of his report and mine . The first report listed 105 parts , the report I ran listed 124 parts . I watched my supervisor run the report again and he came up with 16 pages ( i did not count the parts on that one, I surmised that it would have the same number—124).
Has anyone else run across this phenomena ? I was checking here on the forum in case anyone had some insight ( no pun on word intended) on this. I actually created a dashboard to aid in viewing a BOM as the out of the box Epicor report is… hard to read at times…
We have a mix of assemblies built ahead of time and assemblies " built on line " in the mfg process. I don’t think his would affect the part count on this report…
My first question would be, are the missing parts manufactured parts?
If they are, and the revisions were not approved, they would most likely be missing from the report.
You could review the audit log for the revision on both the parent part and any lower level manufactured parts to see if it was recently approved, which might explain the missing parts.
So far, they are purchase parts. No items on Audit log, ( in part Tracker) … Parts were not on cycle count ( not being posted) . No audit history on top level part either.
The only other thing would be to compare the options used for the report format. I don’t remember if they differ on the output - between End Part Only, Single Level or Indented Level. I typically don’t use this report - I prefer to use method tracker…
My supervisor verified that he ran the report the same way the first time and the second time ( when he got the same results as I did) . I agree , I don’t like the canned report, to busy, but it does give costs and that is why management runs it, to cost finished goods.
I have run into some issues using the canned BOM reports concerning effective dates. I think this was back on the 10.2.200 version. It seems like it was the BOM Listing report. The default effective date that populated for a part excluded some parts. This was a couple of years ago now at a different company so the memory is a bit foggy.
We had several subassembly levels plus phantom levels.
Seems like we have to figure out the effective dates on the subassemblies shown on the filter tab and match those effective dates to have everything show properly.
We put a support call in and got the working as designed response.
That does ring a bell. We use to have an issue with the availability report in regards to Effective Date. My suspicions are now that the user had a date in the effective date from a previous report generation. Just a hunch…