Project Tracker - Material Costs Duplicated from Sub Jobs

We have run into the same thing.

Anytime you have a Master Job feeding a Sub Job (as a material requirement), Vantage rolls the costs into several cost buckets. But the only one the Sub Job cares about is the MtlUnitCost. So it appears as the Actual Material Cost of the Sub Job appear to be much higher than the Planned Material Cost.

One way to get around this is to take the Per Unit Cost of the Master and enter that into the Material Unit Cost of the Part on the Sub Job. Then at least the plan and actual will not be so different. The caveat is you cannot link the Master Job to the Project. Cause then again...your costs will be overstated by the Master.

Hope this helps...
Thanks
Patty Buechler


--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "brucewbrannan" <bruce.brannan@...> wrote:
>
> We have jobs with subassemblies (sub-jobs). The topmost job is the final assembly. For example, we have job 710-0. It's the topmost job. We have 710-1, 710-2, and 710-3, all as subassemblies of 710-0. Under 710-1 we have 710-1a and 710-1b (and so forth). When we look at the Project Tracker and Project Costs (for the project) it shows Actual Material cost. This number has been greatly inflated. We added up the PO lines and verified it. Some of the increased cost is due to burden and labor, noted in the production detail report. But the number is far greater than that.
> I printed a production detail report of all the 710-Xx jobs. As an example, I found that we bought material to job 710-1b. The material cost shows properly on the production detail report. That same material cost also shows on 710-1. The cost didn't MOVE to its parent assembly, it was copied. This happens on all of the subassembly jobs. Material costs showing on 710-3c are also on 710-3.
> You'd think, as material costs move up the job tree, so would the costs. Not so, at least not in the Project Tracker. The Actual Material field is adding up all the material costs of every job in a project: sub jobs, parent jobs, etc. This is not a true representation of the job costs.
> Is this by design? Is it a bug? Is it something we're doing wrong? We've made several reports based on this same data, to monitor project costs against the order value and those are being affected too.
>
> Thanks
>
We have jobs with subassemblies (sub-jobs). The topmost job is the final assembly. For example, we have job 710-0. It's the topmost job. We have 710-1, 710-2, and 710-3, all as subassemblies of 710-0. Under 710-1 we have 710-1a and 710-1b (and so forth). When we look at the Project Tracker and Project Costs (for the project) it shows Actual Material cost. This number has been greatly inflated. We added up the PO lines and verified it. Some of the increased cost is due to burden and labor, noted in the production detail report. But the number is far greater than that.
I printed a production detail report of all the 710-Xx jobs. As an example, I found that we bought material to job 710-1b. The material cost shows properly on the production detail report. That same material cost also shows on 710-1. The cost didn't MOVE to its parent assembly, it was copied. This happens on all of the subassembly jobs. Material costs showing on 710-3c are also on 710-3.
You'd think, as material costs move up the job tree, so would the costs. Not so, at least not in the Project Tracker. The Actual Material field is adding up all the material costs of every job in a project: sub jobs, parent jobs, etc. This is not a true representation of the job costs.
Is this by design? Is it a bug? Is it something we're doing wrong? We've made several reports based on this same data, to monitor project costs against the order value and those are being affected too.

Thanks