Thanks Scott and Chris for your input. I didn't realize the checkbox was in the cost rollup. We did some experimenting in an old training database with it. We've decided to keep the check box on when rolling costs because our departments are just learning to check their variances and taking the checkbox off will make that worse. We do have a mixture of issuing sub-assemblies from stock and make some on the job. After costs are rolled in the live database and it's backed up we'll restore the backup to one of our "sandboxes". We'll do another rollup in the sandbox database taking the checkbox off. I've set up a BAQ and dashboard to allow pricing personnel to select a group of parts split into cost buckets and paste them into a spreadsheet. From that point they can use Excel to markup any bucket they choose. Their pricing spreadsheets will be so much easier to maintain thru this system than trying to keep the updated manually. Thanks again for the help that pointed the way to a solution for us! I'll be interested in learning if Epicor 9 handles things correctly and we can actually track job costs through...
--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "saab_barracuda" <chris.clunn@...> wrote:
>
> That check box works fine for the cost roll and setting standard costs but doesn't work out in practice for the job costing when issuing sub-assemblies from stock. When you issue the manufactured parts, they go to the job as direct material cost (including the material burden!) and appear the same as purchased parts. So then if you rolled with the sub-assemblies broken out, you'll have a mismatch on your job costs vs. part costs when you execute. And if you issue some of a sub-assembly from stock and make some of the same part on the job, it gets really messy. Anyway, the way Vantage 8.0x currently works makes it really hard to track job/part costs.
>
> From what our Epicor consultant was telling me, it's supposed to be fixed in E9. It's supposed to have 5 account inventory (labor, burden, subcont, material and material burden just like WIP and COS). It might add a bit of complexity with more accounts but it makes much more sense and much easier to follow (e.g. labor inventory --> labor WIP --> labor COS). We have the E9 discs but haven't loaded to test quite yet so it's yet to be confirmed.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
>
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Litzau" <scott.litzau@> wrote:
> >
> > 8.803.4xx
> >
> > When you are in Costing Workbench and do the Actions -> Rollup there is a
> > checkbox called "Consider Pull As Assembly Settings". By default this is
> > checked. It needs to be unchecked when you Rollup the costs so it will roll
> > Sub-Assemblies as the separate costs (Labor, Burden, etc..).
> >
> >
> > >From Help
> > ------------------------------
> > Consider Pull As Assembly Settings
> > Select this check box if, during the rollup process, you want subassembly
> > costs to be treated as Material costs only as they roll up into higher
> > assemblies.
> >
> > Clear the check box if, during the rollup process, you want subassembly
> > costs to roll up to higher assemblies as elemental costs. In other words,
> > subassembly Material costs roll up to the Material costs of the higher
> > assemblies and subassembly Labor costs roll up to the Labor costs of the
> > higher assemblies, and so forth.
> > -----------------------------
> >
> > Scott
>