That's exactly the same problem we are experiencing.
Indeed challenging
Sounds like 9 will help.
Â
From: cooner_55421 <cooner_55421@...>
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 3:18 PM
Subject: [Vantage] Re: Loosing prior labor hours on parts made for stock
Â
Indeed challenging
Sounds like 9 will help.
Â
From: cooner_55421 <cooner_55421@...>
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 3:18 PM
Subject: [Vantage] Re: Loosing prior labor hours on parts made for stock
Â
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>Hi Jim,
>
>Not sure if this is the same issue as yours.
>We are on 8.04.409C - Seeing material and labor has been a huge issue for us.
>
>Each unit sold uses approx. 2000 component parts that come from "make to stock" jobs. There are approx. 2000 purchased to stock components used too.
>Labor is lost for those "make to stock" parts as they come into the parent as material.
>
>We tried setting up non-stock parts but that opened up a whole new set of issues. We do have about 14 major sub-assemblies that are non-stock though.
>
>We finally ended up with ODBC and Access. It was about a year to get the views we wanted. The resulting queries and reports ended up being our process for keeping track of the costs breakout for now. There has been some talk of turning them into BAQ reports, but haven't gone that far.
>
>>In 9.04+ you can preserve the labor and burden costs on a >subassembly when it is rolled up to the parent.
>Another company is running E9 but I haven't had time to looked at the cost accounting a lot. If it can keep labor straight that would be huge.
>
>--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, Steven Gotschall <sgotschall@...> wrote:
>>
>> In 8.03 subassembly costs are rolled up as material cost to the parent. In 9.04+ you can preserve the labor and burden costs on a subassembly when it is rolled up to the parent. Since I don't have version 9, I can't remember where these settings are, but I do remember that the way they are labeled is a little confusing.
>>
>>
>> From: jim_chance <jim_chance@...>
>> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 10:00 AM
>> Subject: [Vantage] Loosing prior labor hours on parts made for stock
>>
>>
>> ÂÂ
>> Have you ever heard someone complain about loosing the prior labor hours on parts made for stock?
>>
>> For instance, not being able to see the costs in a final assembly because the cost is reflected as all material cost on the job that the manufactured part is issued to and not as time and material?
>>
>> Is there any way to view this?
>>
>> What are the workarounds due to this design?
>>
>> Are there capture points?
>>
>> Is this information collected anywhere?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>
>
>
>
>