Job Close Process

We are running the Epicor Job Close process. I just want to understand what is the the trigger or flag that will tell the process to try to close the job. I am curious if it looks at the last operation to be completed or something else that indicates the process to try to close a job.

Thanks Kim

Commenting to move it back to top and have another question.

I guess I am wonder what makes it flag set to candidate (I am guessing this means the system thinks it could be closed and will try too)

New question: Does anyone know the order it process checks on job close? Does it look at labor first then DMR ETC…

thanks Kim

I don’t know the sequence or that it matters. All the job close parameters are checked. So a Job “candidate” to close has to pass all the parameters and could fail one or multiple parameters.

Brad Boes
bradboes@boosterpconsulting.com
231-845-1090

I wish this topic had more info in it since we are having jobs show up as Candidates with only 2 of the 5 operations complete, the final op has no labor on it and there is no completed qty listed on the job closing screens. What on earth would be causing this to happen? I started a call with Epicor but I’m not holding my breath.

Did you look at the Job Close and Job Complete Logs?

We don’t have auto job completion and closing running right now so there are no logs to review. We manually complete and close out jobs. The problem I’m having is they review their Candidates for completion and this is visible when searching for a Candidate and the question is why? It is currently far from being a Candidate for completion.

I notice there is a completion date in the Job Completion/Closing Maintenance. Did someone accidentally mark it complete then removed it. I think it leaves that completion date. Maybe that is why. I would try it with a job in your test environment and see if it changes a job to candidate.

Sorry no answer for you, just confirming the same behavior when I search jobs with the candidate filter.
I don’t have any job complete/close parameters set so don’t see how that could be involved.

To add to the confusion, not sure how/when JobHead.Candidate gets set either.
Ref screen shot of a BAQ where I tried comparing OpComplete(s) and the Candidate field.

That date is always present, it shows the current date so if you were to check off the Complete box it would enter in that date, that is normal operation of the closing screen. I have found that in the Job Cost Adjusment screen the 999 operation is flagged as complete but there is absolutely no labor posted against it, and I can’t uncheck that box because it will error out stating “A valid employee ID is required”

Epicor’s response was a FAQ on how Candidate works which should be triggered off the completion of the final operation, but something is going wrong somewhere.

It appears you’re having almost the opposite issue than what I’m having. You have honest Candidates not being tagged as them, and I have open WIP jobs getting tagged as Candidates. Go figure.

I like to update threads when I discover a solution to my problem. I’m not sure how widespread this issue is, it may not apply to V9, but in 10.2.400.10 if you have a job released and an individual had clocked into it and worked on it, maybe just the first OP or the first two, no labor on the “last OP” and no completed qty on the last OP either. If you go to Job entry and un-check engineered to perhaps add an additional operation, or materials, when you do that the job is tagged as a candidate immediately. I found this by adding the Engineered box as a change log event for a different purpose, but I also added Candidate and Job Header Completed QTY as logging events, that’s when I noticed this on a job that was showing up as a candidate.

Seeing as how the Candidate check box is not user editable this shows there is a program glitch somewhere. I also noticed on jobs where there was a Sub Assembly with a completed qty on that, last OP on the SA was not tagged as last OP either, It would take that completed qty from the SA and post it to the job header.

Epicor has taken this problem to Development and we’ll see where it goes from there.

1 Like