Here is an idea that deserves your attention on the Epicor Ideas Portal, crucial for anyone dealing with accurate job cost allocation and financial compliance.
The idea is KIN-I-6736 - Correct Batch Job Cost Allocation: Honor User-Defined Zero Material Cost Factor (MCF) for GAAP and COGS Compliance .
The core issue:
The system currently defaults a co-part’s Material Cost Factor (MCF) to a minimum of 1, even when a user explicitly sets it to zero. This is a critical design flaw that prevents accurate cost allocation and can lead to financial inaccuracies.
Why is this a problem?
There are several valid business scenarios where a zero MCF is required. Ignoring this user input causes:
Inaccurate Costing: The system incorrectly assigns a material cost to parts that should have a zero cost, such as placeholder “kit” parts or rework items.
Cost Misallocation: The total material cost for a batch job isn’t fully allocated to the other parts, skewing inventory values and profitability metrics.
Financial Discrepancy: This behavior directly compromises the accuracy of your Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) and other financial reports, making it challenging to maintain GAAP compliance.
This isn’t just an inconvenience; it’s a fundamental issue that affects the integrity of your financial data and business decision-making.
What we need:
The system must honor a user-defined MCF of 0, allocate zero material cost to that co-part, and correctly allocate all other material costs based on the defined MCFs.
Please take a moment to vote for this idea! Your support is vital to getting this fixed.
Sorry, I’m going to have to disagree here. There are too many fields that are x1000 with I’m sure many customers with more than 1000 char in those fields.
I need your vote.
Signature Capture - Need an Application Studio Widget to allow a popup to collect a signature
I have an Idea posted - Log In - Epicor Identity to ask for a widget in Application Studio to collect a signature.
We have a paperless system currently in place for the classic software. At the point where our customer drives up to place the order and pick up product, we can collect a signature that is stored in the system. This signature is printed on the packing slip. This signature is printed on the invoice. For our staff, we are paperless.
CSG has maintained our current software. For the move to Kinetic UX, we have been told there is no widget available to handle this crucial step for us. There is more detail in the idea.
Scott
That’s a bit more complicated. The “x1000” nomenclature only controls display, independently of the actual data size. What you’re seeing is a UX nuisance, a misalignment between the UI and the database.
Storage is controlled at the SQL Server data definition. Comment fields are stored as nvarchar(max), which sets a limit of 4GB, or 2,147,483,648 unicode characters. The UX misalignment is annoying, but those massively overprovisioned field sizes are a serious risk.
If they were to spend the precious limited dev resources on this, it would be nice if they converted all existing ones to unlimited and just updated the syntax so unlimited and x1000 etc were separate syntax.
In Grow they provide the ability to sort dashboards into folders, this works great except there’s a list of All Dashboards right underneath the folders that lists every dashboard a user has access to in alphabetical order.
If you want dashboards sorted within a folder, you might label them 1. Outside Sales 2. Inside Sales and if you do that in more than one folder the All Dashboards will end up with several 1. xxx dashboards stacked together. If they made All Dashboards a folder that was collapsed by default it would make this a much cleaner look overall.
I am thinking that the real issue is that you can’t enforce a 1000 character limit.
X(1000) should be replaced with some other reference like x(MAX) and then schema/datamodel reflect that. What’s the effort required… if it’s like fixing field help then it might get done when hell freezes over.
Any new field created with x(1000) would behave as it says on the label.
The question is how many fields are set this way and as always do we need another distraction for Epicor Development to be diverted from “New functionality”. And hacky as it might sound perhaps a tool tip on UD columns that shows up if you use X(1000) and also in extended properties “Hey drag over from the old days x(1000) is really varchar(MAX) in sql speak”
Interesting question and I have never tried this @alex.ball what happens if you use X(999) or X(1001)?
Bit late to the idea but i was emailed the question Friday after i had finished work so didnt have time to upload and copy.
Our quality team have asked if there was somewhere in the job that enabled them to see straight away if it had any NCs raised against it.
I dug around and the only place i could see was in the Activity section and in the individual transactions sections and even then it is not very clear and easy to miss.
So my idea was there to be a section somewhere in Job Entry/Tracker that was entitled Non Conformance and in there it detailed any NCs that had been raised against the Job be it Material, Operation etc…
I sent it to my colleague here and she was able to see and vote for the idea. I don’t know if they’re just immediately available within the submitter’s organization or if it got reviewed after you looked at it. Do you mind trying it again to see if it’s available for you?
You’d have my vote if they’d open up the idea so people could vote on it. Only people in your organization can see it until its an approved idea. Hint Hint Epicor…
Agreed but there are so many bigger issues, like making field help useful again, that I can’t get behind this.
They are going to hurt their brand with existing customers if they don’t start to timely review submitted idea and open them up for voting. I know, I know, they are focused on getting NEW customers
