Our company is in the process of implementing Epicor 10 and I have been working on learning how to perform cost rollups using the costing workbench. It is going well for the most part. However, I am stuck on a particular instance in which we have multiple revisions for a single part. Each revision has the exact same BOM but very different methods of manufacturing (one revision holds the operations for our standard production line, and the the other has the operation for our fully automated line). Each revision has significantly different methods of manufacturing, but result in the exact same finished good.
Ideally, I would be able to cost these differently as each revision has very different labor/burden costs. However, based on what I have seen so far, this probably was not the intended use of a ārevisionā and I believe each part can only hold one standard.
Am I missing something, or is this understanding correct? Is there a way I can use the alternate method field to set our standards in a way that would reflect these method of manufacturing differences?
This is relatively new to me and our company, so any insight is greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance.
I believe you might be using REVISIONS incorrectly.
In Epicor, a Revision describes the fit/form/function of a specific final product, no matter how you make (or purchase) it.
Epicor also has a concept of āalternate Methodā which describes different ways to make a part. If you make the same product in more than one SITE, then you need to have a different Alt Method per site. Also, you can specify in the Part/Site tab which is the PRIMARY Alternate Method.
Product costing can only cost ONE Revision / Method. When you recost, you specify which SITE is being costed, and this is how it determines which Alternate Method to use for building the cost.
Also note that in some companies, they want to have different cost per site. To do this, you must have a different COST ID assigned to each site. First you create new cost IDs (in cost id maintenance), then you assign the cost ID to a site (in Site Maintenance). Then you need to do the cost roll per site.
In Epicor, the āCost Typeā on a part determines how the part is costed for inventory purposes. There really isnāt a way in Epicor to āstandard costā a single part based on its method using default tools.
If you want to FIND OUT what the cost of each revision is, you can run the BOM Cost report for each particular revisionā¦ OR you can play around in the Costing Workbench (but that tool is more designed for using on multiple finished goods parts simultaneously).
NOTE: In the newest version, 2022.1, Epicor has announced āinventory by revisionāā¦ if youāre a SaaS environment you might want to see if that will do what you need. I havenāt tested it yet so canāt say one way or the other.
Thank you very much for the response. It is very helpful!
Our company has 3 sites and 2 methods of manufacturing at each site. Any given product can be manufactured with up to 6 different methods. If I understand this correctly, the proper way to set this up is to have 1 revision (because the final product has the same fit/form/function) and 6 Alternate Methods. Correct? Or is it 3 revisions (one for each site) and 2 alternate methods for each revision?
I also have to set up 3 Cost IDs (one for each site) and do one cost roll for all three sites, correct?
So in your case, yes, you create ONE revision that describes the current fit/form/function. If you have 6 sites, you only āNEEDā 5 alternatesā¦ You create the first Revision with a blank alternate in the first siteā¦ then create 5 more alternates, one for each additional site.
Some companies still prefer to create SIX alternates just to make everything the sameā¦ Alt 1a = Site 1, Alt 1b = site 1 cost build etcā¦ The main revision still is created in one of the sites, but that one is ignored because they also point the PartPlant Primary alternate Method to the ALT for that site.
You then do the cost roll for each of the three sites, and it will use the primary method specified for the cost.
NOTE: In the newest version, 2022.1, Epicor has announced āinventory by revisionāā¦ if youāre a SaaS environment you might want to see if that will do what you need. I havenāt tested it yet so canāt say one way or the other.
Sorry to dig up an older thread - but Iām curious about this āinventory by revisionā announcement you mention for 2022.1. Can you point me to any documentation / official release notes about this? I read through the āWhatās Newā document for 2022.1 on EpicWeb and saw no mention of it.
By saying āSaaS environmentā - are you implying itās a cloud-only thing? We are on premā¦
As far as I can tell, āinventory by revisionā has not been implemented yet. Itās not in my local Epicor instance (2022.1.7), and it also is not in the Public Cloud (SaaS) instance I have access to.
After reading everyoneās comments I am going to make a statement about what I understood and I was hoping you could tell me if I got it or notā¦ because I have the same question as @ConnorOlson had about what the costing workbench is going to use to cost itā¦
What I understood is that you would make your revision for the part be the way you want to cost it- the method that you want to use for your standard cost.
And then you would use alternate methods to hold the alternate way of manufacturing the part and use those alternate methods where applicable (i.e. job creation, quote entry, etc.)ā¦ is that right?
the cost build will use the āPrimary Alternate Revisionā as defined on the Part/Site tab for calculating the costā¦
FURTHERā¦ if you are in a multi-site environment, AND if all your sites share the same cost ID, then it will use the Alternate method that points to that specific site idā¦
Soā¦ in theory, you could create a special āCosting siteā that would be used to build all costsā¦ all alternate BOMS for teh costing site would be the main costing methodā¦ then all your other sites would have their own alternate method defined in the primary method.
Soā¦ using the illustration belowā¦ i have a cost ID of 1 that is assigned to all sitesā¦ but the costing workbench will use the Alt Rev B to build the cost for all sites, because the cost id is owned by the LAX site, and LAX has the primary alternate rev pointed to B.
BUT when you actually manufacture the parts, it will use the respective alternate methods for each site.
In your graphic, are the Rev 1ās all the same bill?
I think I am certainly lost on the Rev to Alt relationship.
Doesnāt Rev 1 have a bill or no? Are you saying that Rev1, if you open with that in method tracker, is blank and it really is the alt rev that has the method?
Revision 1, alt A, alt B and alt Cā¦ note that you can also have a BLANK alternate. Alternates are secondary methodsā¦ the āblankā is the primary but also points to a site.
Soā¦ if you create rev 1, blank alternate in site LAX, then it is an LAX revisionā¦ but you can also create an LAX Alternate, and choose that as your primary alternate for LAX.
