Bravo Patty!
For the life of me I don't know why they don't 'get' that - or why they are digging in their heels against making it more flexibility by allowing the USER decide when to close (like Jobs, Orders, POs, etc.,).
Thx for fighting the good fight!
Rob
For the life of me I don't know why they don't 'get' that - or why they are digging in their heels against making it more flexibility by allowing the USER decide when to close (like Jobs, Orders, POs, etc.,).
Thx for fighting the good fight!
Rob
--- On Tue, 12/16/08, bpbuechler <pbuechler@...> wrote:
From: bpbuechler <pbuechler@...>
Subject: [Vantage] Re: Return Parts To Vendor
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2008, 8:09 AM
One more thing to add...heads up to all of you that have QA
processing the disposition and Purchasing negotiating with the
Supplier...big flaw in the 'standard' design of the software.
Let's say you are approved to Return the Material and debit. So the
QA Manager does the DMR-Reject; Inventory Control processes the
Miscellaneous Shipment (attaching the DMR to the Misc Shipment). The
Purchasing Agent still has to go back into the DMR to process the
Debit Memo Request. As soon as you REJECT the qty, the DMR auto-
closes.
We have gone round and round with Epicor on the logic. They say this
is by design; which I argue as the person REJECTING the material is
not the same person who processes the Debit Memo Request.
Leave the bloody thing open until I check the box to close it!!!
Patty Buechler
--- In vantage@yahoogroups .com, Robert Brown <robertb_versa@ ...>
wrote:
>
> Yes - Not well thought out at all by Epicor. (One of endless
examples of software designed by people that 'read a book' on
manufacturing but have never DONE it - clearly evidenced by the
quality of their bug-leaden product.)
>
> We've gone to a 'never fail' DMR disposition process. The vendor
measures coming out were over simplified and useless anyway so we
have our own based on reason codes for acceptance disposition of DMRs.
>
> Some of the reason codes represent failure (to scrap & full debit,
for rework & negotiated debit & for RTV for full debit).
>
> At least this we the inventory never 'disappears' (although it does
get shuttled off to non-nettable to MRP whse bins specific for each
type) and planner/buyers can still trace what is happening.
>
> Especially useful for rework (a favored method for us as we can't
wait for the vendor to replace in most cases) - it allows true cost
to be developed as the accepted for rework mtl is issued to a
job 'making' itself. The vendor debit can then be applied in a way
that it actually offsets manufacturing incurred rework expense
(instead of 'rewarding' purchasing by wiping out their purchase
expense).
>
> The only flaw is with return to vendor as it is still easiest to
use a misc shipment back to vendor. (Only alternative is a no
charge 'sale' & 'real' inv shipment back to vendor... Not worth the
extra complication for the same net result.) In this case, we use a
count adjustment and a reason code of RTV.
>
> Doing this for SCRAP actions also gives our accounting dept control
over WHEN we decide to truly transactionally & financially scrap.
Sometimes the vendor disagrees with our QC assessment and
considerable haggling time is required to iron out details.
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 12/15/08, Dave <dave334012@ ...> wrote:
> From: Dave <dave334012@ ...>
> Subject: [Vantage] Re: Return Parts To Vendor
> To: vantage@yahoogroups .com
> Date: Monday, December 15, 2008, 12:59 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rob,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the quick answer. I guess I'm floored that Vista has
such
>
> an important piece missing. I've never before used an MRP system
>
> that did not have a solid built-in method for returning parts to
>
> vendors. I'd expect a transaction history record showing a
negative
>
> receipt against the PO. This makes "Return to Vendor for Rework"
>
> pretty messy.
>
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups .com, Robert Brown <robertb_versa@ ...>
>
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Dave,
>
> >
>
> > For a change, Epicor support is being honest about the weakness
of
>
> the 'right' process and giving you good advice on the easiest way
to
>
> handle your problem.
>
> >
>
> > The 'right' way would have been to inspect/fail - & then DMR
>
> disposition Fail return to vendor. The DMR fail removes the
inventory
>
> qty/cost asset.
>
> >
>
> > This could have been a PO receipt inspection or a (post receipt)
>
> inventory inspection.
>
> >
>
> > The weakness in doing this the 'right' way (DMR Fail disposition)
>
> is that the action results in a black hole process. The material is
>
> simply gone and no common tools are available in the system to then
>
> enable a strong RTV/Debit, Rework/Debit, Scrap/Debit process.
>
> >
>
> > Example: Return to vendor is done via a miscellaneous shipment
(as
>
> the inventory no longer exists to ship after the DMR failure).
>
> >
>
> > Rob
>
> >
>
> > --- On Mon, 12/15/08, Dave <dave334012@ ...> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > From: Dave <dave334012@ ...>
>
> > Subject: [Vantage] Return Parts To Vendor
>
> > To: vantage@yahoogroups .com
>
> > Date: Monday, December 15, 2008, 11:54 AM
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Hi,
>
> >
>
> > Can someone give me the basics of how to return an inventory item
>
> to a
>
> > vendor once the invoice has been paid? I see how to create a
debit
>
> > memo, but that doesn't affect inventory. I need to reverse any
PPV
>
> > impacts when the items leave inventory. (I need to do this
because
>
> > when I was on vacation someone wrote an Inventory PO instead of a
>
> Sub-
>
> > Contract PO so now I have extra parts in inventory and a huge PPV
>
> for
>
> > them.) Epicor phone support told me to just adjust out the extra
>
> > parts, but there must be a better way.
>
> >
>
> > Thanks,
>
> >
>
> > Dave
>
> > CV Technology
>
> >
>