Everyone,
We are in the process of developing a modification for Vantage 6.1
which would enable the alignment of sub-component quantities and
their respective costing with the final assembly item. Currently,
Vantage uses a costing lot size (CLS) for these sub-level components
with the amortization of set-up and total costs being based on the
CLS. In the quote modification, we would like to conservatively
establish a margin floor (lowest possible standard margin) by using
the various quote quantities of the final assembly item and
amortizing the cost of each component against these quote quantities
instead of the CLS. We have found that by setting up each component
as a "pull as assembly" item, we can get the costing to appear
correct throughout all component levels. In our business though,
these components are actually treated as material sub-component items
with their own BOMs and run as separate jobs though based on the
final assembly demand, inventoried, then pulled from stock, and
issued to the final assembly job. In our initial scheduling test of
the switch from material to "pull as assembly" components, we found
scheduling errors where the sub-assembly components were dated due
after the final assembly item was completed. We intend to do more
testing of the scheduling aspect of this.
Our communications with custom programming have been slow and not
very productive and appears will be costly to stay with the
components being material components. Does anyone run their business
similar to this and have they gone down this trail ahead so as to
provide recommendations for both the costing and related scheduling
issues?
Bob Dressendorfer
Bristol Industries
We are in the process of developing a modification for Vantage 6.1
which would enable the alignment of sub-component quantities and
their respective costing with the final assembly item. Currently,
Vantage uses a costing lot size (CLS) for these sub-level components
with the amortization of set-up and total costs being based on the
CLS. In the quote modification, we would like to conservatively
establish a margin floor (lowest possible standard margin) by using
the various quote quantities of the final assembly item and
amortizing the cost of each component against these quote quantities
instead of the CLS. We have found that by setting up each component
as a "pull as assembly" item, we can get the costing to appear
correct throughout all component levels. In our business though,
these components are actually treated as material sub-component items
with their own BOMs and run as separate jobs though based on the
final assembly demand, inventoried, then pulled from stock, and
issued to the final assembly job. In our initial scheduling test of
the switch from material to "pull as assembly" components, we found
scheduling errors where the sub-assembly components were dated due
after the final assembly item was completed. We intend to do more
testing of the scheduling aspect of this.
Our communications with custom programming have been slow and not
very productive and appears will be costly to stay with the
components being material components. Does anyone run their business
similar to this and have they gone down this trail ahead so as to
provide recommendations for both the costing and related scheduling
issues?
Bob Dressendorfer
Bristol Industries