Setting Up Part Classes in Vantage 8

In V6 part class ties expense to the g/l code the department code is
another setting in the database. So I think the answer to your question
is you will have at the min 30 part classes.

Innovative Office Products, Inc.
Frank Zeigafuse
General Manager
610-559-6369
fzeigafuse@...


-----Original Message-----
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Tracy
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 1:00 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Setting Up Part Classes in Vantage 8


Hello, my name is Tracy Otto and we are currently implementing V-8
coming from Dataflo. I am having a problem with part class and all
the processes that use the part class. Li-Cor will have 28
departments in Vantage and about 30 different expense accounts that an
employee could requistion items from. If I understand the system
correctly, that would mean I would have to setup individual part
classes for each department/expense which would equal over 800 part
classes for expense items alone..Did anyone else have problems with
this or is Li-Cor unique on how much grandularity it track by
department?





Useful links for the Yahoo!Groups Vantage Board are: ( Note: You must
have already linked your email address to a yahoo id to enable access. )
(1) To access the Files Section of our Yahoo!Group for Report Builder
and Crystal Reports and other 'goodies', please goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/.
(2) To search through old msg's goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/messages
(3) To view links to Vendors that provide Vantage services goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/links
Yahoo! Groups Links
Hello, my name is Tracy Otto and we are currently implementing V-8
coming from Dataflo. I am having a problem with part class and all
the processes that use the part class. Li-Cor will have 28
departments in Vantage and about 30 different expense accounts that an
employee could requistion items from. If I understand the system
correctly, that would mean I would have to setup individual part
classes for each department/expense which would equal over 800 part
classes for expense items alone..Did anyone else have problems with
this or is Li-Cor unique on how much grandularity it track by
department?
> ...we are currently implementing V-8
> coming from Dataflo. I am having a problem with part class and all
> the processes that use the part class. Li-Cor will have 28
> departments in Vantage and about 30 different expense accounts that an
> employee could requistion items from. If I understand the system
> correctly, that would mean I would have to setup individual part
> classes for each department/expense which would equal over 800 part
> classes for expense items alone..Did anyone else have problems with
> this or is Li-Cor unique on how much grandularity it track by
> department?

Hi Tracy,

I'm still new to Vantage and I understand what you are asking but I have
learned that Vantage builds in a lot of "default" capability. There are many
places to setup defaults but one can always override the values later. For
example, when you look at the Part Maintenance Screen, there's the GL Acct
field. The help says that IF you don't specify an account here, it will use
the part class account number. IF you don't specify an account in the part
class then it will use the vendor's default account information. It's really
designed to save work and you'll find that throughout the system.

Even after all of those defaults, one may specify an account number in
Purchase Order Entry in the Release tab.

My free advice is not to freak out. You may want to set up classes with
account numbers that indicate the natural account but with a default that is
for all departments (something like 01-00-4030 - Office Supplies Unassigned)
and then have purchasing override the department when they enter the PO. If
any charges come through on that account you can always re-class them later.

Too bad users cannot specify an account number during the requisition process
- at least that I've been able to see.

HTH,

Mark W.