Cost by Element -Costing Stocked Sub Assemblies in E9

Yahoo Archive
1
I want to bump this topic back up. It is six months later, and hopefully someone has some "real" experience with E9's costing, and specifically the costing that some of us do when building sub-assemblies to stock, and then issuing these to top level assemblies; does E9 do a good job at retaining separate figures for material, labor, subcontract?

-I am bringing up a test environment just for this issue, but so far it has been really tough to get E9 up and running. However, that is another story...

Please, let the group know how E9's costing works out for you (or not)...

Paul

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce0220" <bruce0220@...> wrote:
>
> To clarify, we understand how to roll up standard cost elementally. The problem is described well by Chris Clunn. I hope to find a user who has experience with this issue, has upgraded to Epicor 9 and was able to resolve it with the upgrade. We would like to speak to someone in a company with this specific experience. Chris's suggestion to load 9 and try it out is good but if we could find a user with real live experience, that would be great!
> Bruce Antonides
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "saab_barracuda" <chris.clunn@> wrote:
> >
> > Putting subassemblies in inventory is a huge mess for std costing in Vantage. You can roll standard cost up any way you want. HOWEVER, Vantage will not transact costs in the elements resulting in large WIP/COS variances. If you issue manufactured parts from stock to a job, it bundles all of the elemental costs into the material bucket without regard to the standard cost set in PartCost. It works correctly if you issue job to job or make subassemblies on the job (pull as assembly) but that's not always practical.
> >
> > Additionally, there are some differences in how the costing workbench handles material burden compared with the actual issue transactions. For this reason, I have quit using the costing workbench, manage the cost estimates on the side, and manually adjust std costs. It's a hassle but at least it jives with the job cost estimates so that WIP variances are real job variances and not std cost differences on the finished part.
> >
> > I've investigated Epicor 9 both with Epicor product reps and other customers at Perspectives last year regarding this issue. It is my understanding is that Epicor 9 DOES indeed transact subassemblies with the cost elements. That will be nice, if I can ever get there.
> >
> > My suggestion would be to load up E9 on your test box and play with it to verify the functionality meets your requirements. Call your CAM to arrange.
> >
> > Chris Clunn
> >
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Parfrey" <garyp@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Bruce
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You can roll up your standard elementally in 8.00 and 803.400. I think
> > > the issue is that subassemblies get rolled up as materials in their
> > > parent product rather than maintaining their elemental costs
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In the costing workbench ensure the 'Consider pull as Assembly' is
> > > unchecked when you process the rollup subform
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Gary
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> > > Of Bruce0220
> > > Sent: 26 August 2010 5:44 PM
> > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [Vantage] Cost by Element
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > A client of mine is investigating an upgrade to Epicor9. A primary
> > > interest is whether Epicor9 can cost by element with material, labor and
> > > overhead all rolling up discretely from sub-assemblies. He's been using
> > > this roll up in Vantage 8.03 and has the problem with WIP rolling up
> > > differently than his standard and creating the wild variances. He has
> > > spoken to 3 people at Epicor and gotten two different answers about
> > > whether Epicor9 handles this or not. He would like to find an Epicor
> > > customer who had the same issue with 8.03 and upgraded to Epicor9 with
> > > success in resolving this. Have any of you done this?
> > >
> > > Bruce Antonides
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>
2
A client of mine is investigating an upgrade to Epicor9. A primary interest is whether Epicor9 can cost by element with material, labor and overhead all rolling up discretely from sub-assemblies. He's been using this roll up in Vantage 8.03 and has the problem with WIP rolling up differently than his standard and creating the wild variances. He has spoken to 3 people at Epicor and gotten two different answers about whether Epicor9 handles this or not. He would like to find an Epicor customer who had the same issue with 8.03 and upgraded to Epicor9 with success in resolving this. Have any of you done this?

Bruce Antonides
3
Bruce



You can roll up your standard elementally in 8.00 and 803.400. I think
the issue is that subassemblies get rolled up as materials in their
parent product rather than maintaining their elemental costs



In the costing workbench ensure the 'Consider pull as Assembly' is
unchecked when you process the rollup subform



Regards



Gary



From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Bruce0220
Sent: 26 August 2010 5:44 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Cost by Element





A client of mine is investigating an upgrade to Epicor9. A primary
interest is whether Epicor9 can cost by element with material, labor and
overhead all rolling up discretely from sub-assemblies. He's been using
this roll up in Vantage 8.03 and has the problem with WIP rolling up
differently than his standard and creating the wild variances. He has
spoken to 3 people at Epicor and gotten two different answers about
whether Epicor9 handles this or not. He would like to find an Epicor
customer who had the same issue with 8.03 and upgraded to Epicor9 with
success in resolving this. Have any of you done this?

Bruce Antonides





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
4
Putting subassemblies in inventory is a huge mess for std costing in Vantage. You can roll standard cost up any way you want. HOWEVER, Vantage will not transact costs in the elements resulting in large WIP/COS variances. If you issue manufactured parts from stock to a job, it bundles all of the elemental costs into the material bucket without regard to the standard cost set in PartCost. It works correctly if you issue job to job or make subassemblies on the job (pull as assembly) but that's not always practical.

Additionally, there are some differences in how the costing workbench handles material burden compared with the actual issue transactions. For this reason, I have quit using the costing workbench, manage the cost estimates on the side, and manually adjust std costs. It's a hassle but at least it jives with the job cost estimates so that WIP variances are real job variances and not std cost differences on the finished part.

I've investigated Epicor 9 both with Epicor product reps and other customers at Perspectives last year regarding this issue. It is my understanding is that Epicor 9 DOES indeed transact subassemblies with the cost elements. That will be nice, if I can ever get there.

My suggestion would be to load up E9 on your test box and play with it to verify the functionality meets your requirements. Call your CAM to arrange.

Chris Clunn


--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Parfrey" <garyp@...> wrote:
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
> You can roll up your standard elementally in 8.00 and 803.400. I think
> the issue is that subassemblies get rolled up as materials in their
> parent product rather than maintaining their elemental costs
>
>
>
> In the costing workbench ensure the 'Consider pull as Assembly' is
> unchecked when you process the rollup subform
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Gary
>
>
>
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of Bruce0220
> Sent: 26 August 2010 5:44 PM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Vantage] Cost by Element
>
>
>
>
>
> A client of mine is investigating an upgrade to Epicor9. A primary
> interest is whether Epicor9 can cost by element with material, labor and
> overhead all rolling up discretely from sub-assemblies. He's been using
> this roll up in Vantage 8.03 and has the problem with WIP rolling up
> differently than his standard and creating the wild variances. He has
> spoken to 3 people at Epicor and gotten two different answers about
> whether Epicor9 handles this or not. He would like to find an Epicor
> customer who had the same issue with 8.03 and upgraded to Epicor9 with
> success in resolving this. Have any of you done this?
>
> Bruce Antonides
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
5
To clarify, we understand how to roll up standard cost elementally. The problem is described well by Chris Clunn. I hope to find a user who has experience with this issue, has upgraded to Epicor 9 and was able to resolve it with the upgrade. We would like to speak to someone in a company with this specific experience. Chris's suggestion to load 9 and try it out is good but if we could find a user with real live experience, that would be great!
Bruce Antonides

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "saab_barracuda" <chris.clunn@...> wrote:
>
> Putting subassemblies in inventory is a huge mess for std costing in Vantage. You can roll standard cost up any way you want. HOWEVER, Vantage will not transact costs in the elements resulting in large WIP/COS variances. If you issue manufactured parts from stock to a job, it bundles all of the elemental costs into the material bucket without regard to the standard cost set in PartCost. It works correctly if you issue job to job or make subassemblies on the job (pull as assembly) but that's not always practical.
>
> Additionally, there are some differences in how the costing workbench handles material burden compared with the actual issue transactions. For this reason, I have quit using the costing workbench, manage the cost estimates on the side, and manually adjust std costs. It's a hassle but at least it jives with the job cost estimates so that WIP variances are real job variances and not std cost differences on the finished part.
>
> I've investigated Epicor 9 both with Epicor product reps and other customers at Perspectives last year regarding this issue. It is my understanding is that Epicor 9 DOES indeed transact subassemblies with the cost elements. That will be nice, if I can ever get there.
>
> My suggestion would be to load up E9 on your test box and play with it to verify the functionality meets your requirements. Call your CAM to arrange.
>
> Chris Clunn
>
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Parfrey" <garyp@> wrote:
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> >
> >
> > You can roll up your standard elementally in 8.00 and 803.400. I think
> > the issue is that subassemblies get rolled up as materials in their
> > parent product rather than maintaining their elemental costs
> >
> >
> >
> > In the costing workbench ensure the 'Consider pull as Assembly' is
> > unchecked when you process the rollup subform
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> >
> > Gary
> >
> >
> >
> > From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> > Of Bruce0220
> > Sent: 26 August 2010 5:44 PM
> > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Vantage] Cost by Element
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > A client of mine is investigating an upgrade to Epicor9. A primary
> > interest is whether Epicor9 can cost by element with material, labor and
> > overhead all rolling up discretely from sub-assemblies. He's been using
> > this roll up in Vantage 8.03 and has the problem with WIP rolling up
> > differently than his standard and creating the wild variances. He has
> > spoken to 3 people at Epicor and gotten two different answers about
> > whether Epicor9 handles this or not. He would like to find an Epicor
> > customer who had the same issue with 8.03 and upgraded to Epicor9 with
> > success in resolving this. Have any of you done this?
> >
> > Bruce Antonides
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>