Standard Costing

Mark/Judy/Others,

Please understand upfront that we have just loaded the Vantage software (v 8.08) and so I am just now getting our general ledger organized and functional. With that being said, my intentions were to run under a standard cost format allowing the actual cost variances to flow to our monthly bottom line as period costs. My goal was to have the actual costs flow through system in an average cost environment, and then use the average cost as a mechanism to do a cost roll at year end to reset the standards for all levles of stock. This is how I worked in a prior world.

My question becomes - can Vantage deliver the same type of relationships and run the same way that I have with othe packages, namely Symix & JD Edwards?

Thank you

Paul

Judy Havlik <judy.havlik@...> wrote:
Dear Mark...

Thanks so much for your response and for discussing this issue.
Wouldn't it be nice if we knew up front what quantities the customer
would always order so we could average ahead of time, but order
quantities here are as variable as the standard costs and there's no
way to predict it.

I don't know if it makes sense to do an analysis on the quantity
every time we receive an order and then go in and adjust the standard
costs every single time. That seems like a lot of maintenance with
300+ orders each month. I'm not sure why they chose to use standard
costs instead of average costs on finished goods. We use average
costs on purchased parts.

There is certainly plenty of guesswork in the Burden and Labor we
apply to our costs. But even with that being said the general
appearance on many of our parts is that we're losing money..and it
might not show this way if the standard costs matched the run size.
I would think that's a true statement.

Sincerely,
Judy Havlik

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Wonsil" <mark_wonsil@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Judy,
>
> > We do our quotes in Vantage. Let's say the quote shows the
following
> > for a new part:
>
> Quotation is more advanced in Vantage than what I'm used to. The
ability to
> create a new assembly and ship right from an order is very cool.
>
> > When run at a quantity of 4,000 pieces, the costs are listed as:
> > Burden - .05002, Labor - .02281, Material - .13013
> >
> > When run at a quantity of 90,000 pieces, the costs are listed as:
> > Burden - .03526, Labor - .01585, Material - .13014
>
> Yes, this makes sense. Your labor and burden will be less because
the setup is
> amortized among more parts. There may be more costs due to the
consumption of
> perishable tooling as well, but that may be already accounted for
in the
> burden rate.
>
> > If our first order comes in for a quantity of 4,000 pieces the
part
> > is entered into Vantage using the costs listed above for the 4,000
> > piece price. Then, as the customer continues to order the
> > part...let's say all subsequent orders are for 90,000 or 200,000
> > pieces, Vantage will still calculate this part using the standard
> > costs we entered when we were running 4,000 pieces. That doesn't
> > seem like it would give us a very accurate Cost of Goods sold,
which
> > is why we thought average costs would make more sense.
>
> A couple of thoughts:
>
> 1) If 4000 is not a usual production run then it's probably not a
good number
> to use as a standard, right? The standard cost is quite arbitrary -
like a
> budget. You should make it reflect reality as best you can. If the
orders are
> equally in 90K or 200K lots, you may want to make your standards
based on 105K
> for example.
>
> 2) Why not recalculate the costs for each order by keeping all of
the costs in
> the quote and then shipping from the order. That quoting worksheet
is a nifty
> utility not found in many other packages. I hope that others will
correct me
> if I'm wrong, but it seems that doing it this way, each order can
have a
> different standard cost. If true, one could completely eliminate
the lot size
> variance issue.
>
> Like you Judy, I'd like to get a ruling on the field.
>
> Mark W.
>







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


Visit your group "vantage" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
vantage-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Does anyone have a good process to analyze and update standard costs
on purchased parts? I want to be able to compare the last invoiced
amount with the current standard. It appears the "last cost" field is
populated with the PO cost, not the invoice cost.
Why not do a report and join on invoice detail to part master.

Then sort be descending dates and you have the last cost at invoice :)

At least in theory

Frank Zeigafuse
Innovative Office Products
General Manager
Direct Phone: 610-559-6369
Email: fzeigafuse@...

Visit www.one.org to see how the world can be changed one person at a time.



-----Original Message-----
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
how2wow
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 12:02 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Standard Costing


Does anyone have a good process to analyze and update standard costs
on purchased parts? I want to be able to compare the last invoiced
amount with the current standard. It appears the "last cost" field is
populated with the PO cost, not the invoice cost.







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
Good idea. I have done that. Can you write "at if" statements in
crystal to exclude lines when the invoiced amount is equal to the
standard... only leaving the variances? Or do I have to dump into
Excel to do that?

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Zeigafuse" <fzeigafuse@l...>
wrote:
>
> Why not do a report and join on invoice detail to part master.
>
> Then sort be descending dates and you have the last cost at
invoice :)
>
> At least in theory
>
> Frank Zeigafuse
> Innovative Office Products
> General Manager
> Direct Phone: 610-559-6369
> Email: fzeigafuse@L...
Create a formula called variance

If invoicedetial.invamt = part.stdmtrl
then 0
else part.stdmtrl - invoicedetail.invamt

Note: not sure about field names but hopefully you get the idea this will
work for purchased parts manufactured parts will be a little more
challenging, but hopefully this gets you 75% there. I believe if you sum
this "variance" number it is what you are "hopefully" looking for.

Frank Zeigafuse
Innovative Office Products
General Manager
Direct Phone: 610-559-6369
Email: fzeigafuse@...

Visit www.one.org to see how the world can be changed one person at a time.



-----Original Message-----
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
how2wow
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 12:54 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Re: Standard Costing


Good idea. I have done that. Can you write "at if" statements in
crystal to exclude lines when the invoiced amount is equal to the
standard... only leaving the variances? Or do I have to dump into
Excel to do that?

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Zeigafuse" <fzeigafuse@l...>
wrote:
>
> Why not do a report and join on invoice detail to part master.
>
> Then sort be descending dates and you have the last cost at
invoice :)
>
> At least in theory
>
> Frank Zeigafuse
> Innovative Office Products
> General Manager
> Direct Phone: 610-559-6369
> Email: fzeigafuse@L...







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
Thanks again... the formula worked!

Now- for the hard part. I've yet to find a "total inventory on hand"
field within Vantage. For instance, we have multiple plants and
shared warehouses. We may have inventory in several places, but I
want to know what the total is for the whole company. The reason I
need this is because my standard cost change formula is- if the
current price is greater than 5% over or under the standard cost AND
we have purchased more than 50% of our total OH inventory at that new
cost, then I change the standard.

Any ideas on that one? Is there possibly a way to sum the total OH's
of each whse in the plantwhse file? If so, I haven't figured out how
to do that yet!

I appreciate all the input!


--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Zeigafuse" <fzeigafuse@l...>
wrote:
>
> Create a formula called variance
>
> If invoicedetial.invamt = part.stdmtrl
> then 0
> else part.stdmtrl - invoicedetail.invamt
>
Yes, you are right this is fun also by the way.

You need to create a sub report for part warehouse and link it to part.
plant and the n you can sum it in the sub report and pass it back to the
main report. Sub reports take a little while to get them to work but once
you do they are really powerful.

Frank Zeigafuse
Innovative Office Products
General Manager
Direct Phone: 610-559-6369
Email: fzeigafuse@...

Visit www.one.org to see how the world can be changed one person at a time.



-----Original Message-----
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
how2wow
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 3:39 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Re: Standard Costing


Thanks again... the formula worked!

Now- for the hard part. I've yet to find a "total inventory on hand"
field within Vantage. For instance, we have multiple plants and
shared warehouses. We may have inventory in several places, but I
want to know what the total is for the whole company. The reason I
need this is because my standard cost change formula is- if the
current price is greater than 5% over or under the standard cost AND
we have purchased more than 50% of our total OH inventory at that new
cost, then I change the standard.

Any ideas on that one? Is there possibly a way to sum the total OH's
of each whse in the plantwhse file? If so, I haven't figured out how
to do that yet!

I appreciate all the input!


--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Zeigafuse" <fzeigafuse@l...>
wrote:
>
> Create a formula called variance
>
> If invoicedetial.invamt = part.stdmtrl
> then 0
> else part.stdmtrl - invoicedetail.invamt
>







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
We never really considered Standard costing within Vantage. The idea of
average-actual was too appealing. Could someone give me an example of
what would be involved in a typical Receipt From MFG in standard cost
environment?



Thanks,



Bruce Butler, IT Manager

Knappe & Koester <http://www.knappe-koester.com/>

18 Bradco Street

Keene, NH

p. 603-355-1166

f. 603-355-2266

bbutler@...





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
If you use Standard Costing when loading your finished goods part and
run sizes for the part vary, how would you accurately report Cost of
Goods Sold?

Sincerely,
Judy Havlik
Plitek L.L.C.
judy.havlik@...



--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Butler" <bbutler@...> wrote:
>
> We never really considered Standard costing within Vantage. The
idea of
> average-actual was too appealing. Could someone give me an example
of
> what would be involved in a typical Receipt From MFG in standard
cost
> environment?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Bruce Butler, IT Manager
>
> Knappe & Koester <http://www.knappe-koester.com/>
>
> 18 Bradco Street
>
> Keene, NH
>
> p. 603-355-1166
>
> f. 603-355-2266
>
> bbutler@...
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> If you use Standard Costing when loading your finished goods part and
> run sizes for the part vary, how would you accurately report Cost of
> Goods Sold?

Hi Judy & Bruce,

This is a matter of perspective. Your COGS for the finished goods part is the
standard cost. No runs, no hits, no errors. It's accurate and correct every
time because the cost has been set. In a standard cost system, you recognize
variances as you bring items into inventory, either through the purchasing
system or through WIP. A standard cost uses variances to control the business.

For example, if you purchase some parts that are $1 higher than standard, you
have an unfavorable variance and you know that prices are rising - you
recognize the expense and from that point the part moves at its
standard/estimated cost. You are now armed with the information that raw
materials are getting more expensive. In an average or "actual" cost system,
you don't find out that you're over budget until you ship the product. It
takes longer to see that prices are rising. There's also the trouble with
timing with these systems. In a standard cost system, all parts cost the same,
so there's less of an issue about fixing errors in transactions. (That does
happen in your company, right?)

On the WIP side, there are more variances to measure: configuration
(substitute parts), methods change, efficiency, labor rate, lot size, usage,
etc. When the work order is complete, you know what the variances are, you
recognize them, and then the parts move trough the system at the known
standard/estimated cost.

Actually, I can ask you the very same question: how do you accurately report
COGS in an average cost system? When invoices some in later and you material
is more than the average but you've already shipped the product, how do you
get those costs to COGS? What if all of those parts didn't get shipped? Are
you taking that variance and splitting it between COGS and inventory?

I'm not an expert on how Vantage does standard cost, I'm just giving you the
theory behind it. I hope it's helpful.

Have a great weekend,

Mark W.
Dear Mark...

This is exactly the type of information I'm looking for. I'm not new
to Vantage but I am new to this side of Vantage having just moved
into engineering from customer service.

We do our quotes in Vantage. Let's say the quote shows the following
for a new part:

When run at a quantity of 4,000 pieces, the costs are listed as:
Burden - .05002, Labor - .02281, Material - .13013

When run at a quantity of 90,000 pieces, the costs are listed as:
Burden - .03526, Labor - .01585, Material - .13014

If our first order comes in for a quantity of 4,000 pieces the part
is entered into Vantage using the costs listed above for the 4,000
piece price. Then, as the customer continues to order the
part...let's say all subsequent orders are for 90,000 or 200,000
pieces, Vantage will still calculate this part using the standard
costs we entered when we were running 4,000 pieces. That doesn't
seem like it would give us a very accurate Cost of Goods sold, which
is why we thought average costs would make more sense.

Sincerely,
Judy Havlik

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Wonsil" <mark_wonsil@...> wrote:
>
> > If you use Standard Costing when loading your finished goods part
and
> > run sizes for the part vary, how would you accurately report Cost
of
> > Goods Sold?
>
> Hi Judy & Bruce,
>
> This is a matter of perspective. Your COGS for the finished goods
part is the
> standard cost. No runs, no hits, no errors. It's accurate and
correct every
> time because the cost has been set. In a standard cost system, you
recognize
> variances as you bring items into inventory, either through the
purchasing
> system or through WIP. A standard cost uses variances to control
the business.
>
> For example, if you purchase some parts that are $1 higher than
standard, you
> have an unfavorable variance and you know that prices are rising -
you
> recognize the expense and from that point the part moves at its
> standard/estimated cost. You are now armed with the information
that raw
> materials are getting more expensive. In an average or "actual"
cost system,
> you don't find out that you're over budget until you ship the
product. It
> takes longer to see that prices are rising. There's also the
trouble with
> timing with these systems. In a standard cost system, all parts
cost the same,
> so there's less of an issue about fixing errors in transactions.
(That does
> happen in your company, right?)
>
> On the WIP side, there are more variances to measure: configuration
> (substitute parts), methods change, efficiency, labor rate, lot
size, usage,
> etc. When the work order is complete, you know what the variances
are, you
> recognize them, and then the parts move trough the system at the
known
> standard/estimated cost.
>
> Actually, I can ask you the very same question: how do you
accurately report
> COGS in an average cost system? When invoices some in later and you
material
> is more than the average but you've already shipped the product,
how do you
> get those costs to COGS? What if all of those parts didn't get
shipped? Are
> you taking that variance and splitting it between COGS and
inventory?
>
> I'm not an expert on how Vantage does standard cost, I'm just
giving you the
> theory behind it. I hope it's helpful.
>
> Have a great weekend,
>
> Mark W.
>
That is why you need to pay attention to your customer order quantities vs.
your standard cost lot size.

When our customers order all over the place, we just choose a cost lot size
in the middle somewhere. Sometimes we have to adjust if a customer's
volumes shift one way or the other. But mostly, if you choose something in
the middle and you're setting up jobs directly to the customer's
quantities, you'll have some variances on either side of standard, which
hopefully over time will cancel each other out.

In our case, on some products, we choose to run to a standard lot size
regardless of what the customer orders. I.E. we get our raw material in 10
pound quantities, which will net about 7000 parts. We choose to run our
jobs in lots of 7000 pieces, even if our customers are ordering 3500, 9000
or 20000. We just run more jobs to fulfill the larger orders. It tends to
be a lot cleaner than messing with partial material lots and returning
material to inventory after the run, then eventually ending up with a job
with a bunch of tiny, useless material lots. That's the beauty of standard
costing and running to stock, you are no longer hog-tied to the customer's
order quantities, you can run what makes sense for your business.

However, a large portion of our customers order in standard quantities
(kanban-type things), so our standard changes when the customer changes
their order quantity.

Amy O'Malley
omaLL004@...
Manufacturing Process Engineer
Synovis IS

On Apr 6 2006, Judy Havlik wrote:

>Dear Mark...
>
>This is exactly the type of information I'm looking for. I'm not new
>to Vantage but I am new to this side of Vantage having just moved
>into engineering from customer service.
>
>We do our quotes in Vantage. Let's say the quote shows the following
>for a new part:
>
>When run at a quantity of 4,000 pieces, the costs are listed as:
>Burden - .05002, Labor - .02281, Material - .13013
>
>When run at a quantity of 90,000 pieces, the costs are listed as:
>Burden - .03526, Labor - .01585, Material - .13014
>
>If our first order comes in for a quantity of 4,000 pieces the part
>is entered into Vantage using the costs listed above for the 4,000
>piece price. Then, as the customer continues to order the
>part...let's say all subsequent orders are for 90,000 or 200,000
>pieces, Vantage will still calculate this part using the standard
>costs we entered when we were running 4,000 pieces. That doesn't
>seem like it would give us a very accurate Cost of Goods sold, which
>is why we thought average costs would make more sense.
>
>Sincerely,
>Judy Havlik
Hi Judy,

> We do our quotes in Vantage. Let's say the quote shows the following
> for a new part:

Quotation is more advanced in Vantage than what I'm used to. The ability to
create a new assembly and ship right from an order is very cool.

> When run at a quantity of 4,000 pieces, the costs are listed as:
> Burden - .05002, Labor - .02281, Material - .13013
>
> When run at a quantity of 90,000 pieces, the costs are listed as:
> Burden - .03526, Labor - .01585, Material - .13014

Yes, this makes sense. Your labor and burden will be less because the setup is
amortized among more parts. There may be more costs due to the consumption of
perishable tooling as well, but that may be already accounted for in the
burden rate.

> If our first order comes in for a quantity of 4,000 pieces the part
> is entered into Vantage using the costs listed above for the 4,000
> piece price. Then, as the customer continues to order the
> part...let's say all subsequent orders are for 90,000 or 200,000
> pieces, Vantage will still calculate this part using the standard
> costs we entered when we were running 4,000 pieces. That doesn't
> seem like it would give us a very accurate Cost of Goods sold, which
> is why we thought average costs would make more sense.

A couple of thoughts:

1) If 4000 is not a usual production run then it's probably not a good number
to use as a standard, right? The standard cost is quite arbitrary - like a
budget. You should make it reflect reality as best you can. If the orders are
equally in 90K or 200K lots, you may want to make your standards based on 105K
for example.

2) Why not recalculate the costs for each order by keeping all of the costs in
the quote and then shipping from the order. That quoting worksheet is a nifty
utility not found in many other packages. I hope that others will correct me
if I'm wrong, but it seems that doing it this way, each order can have a
different standard cost. If true, one could completely eliminate the lot size
variance issue.

Like you Judy, I'd like to get a ruling on the field.

Mark W.
Judy,

Another thing to think about in costing, is that it isn't as "close to right"
as people might want it to be.

You can easily end up worrying about precision, when your accuracy is off to
begin with.

With precision, I'm talking about whether you are running 25,000 pcs or 5,000
pcs you have different usage of resources, and different amortization - for
instance if you have a 10 hr setup at $500/hr machine time, that's $5000.
Spread over 5000 that's $1/each. Over 25,000 and it's $0.20/each. So, we
worry about what we should use as cost if we're running 10,000 pcs in a lot.

With accuracy (and this is where many people forget that there is as much art
in costing as science) I'm talking about where did the $500/hr machine rate
come from anyway? Talk to finance or cost accounting or the controller
about how they arrived at that rate, and you'll find some assumptions...

At some point in the game, you need to figure out how close you need to be in
cost to drive a decision, and not chase any further. If it wouldn't change a
strategic decision one way or the other, it isn't information that is adding
value.

- Alexander


________________________________

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Amy OMalley
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 4:38 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Vantage] Standard Costing


That is why you need to pay attention to your customer order quantities vs.
your standard cost lot size.

When our customers order all over the place, we just choose a cost lot size
in the middle somewhere. Sometimes we have to adjust if a customer's
volumes shift one way or the other. But mostly, if you choose something in
the middle and you're setting up jobs directly to the customer's
quantities, you'll have some variances on either side of standard, which
hopefully over time will cancel each other out.

In our case, on some products, we choose to run to a standard lot size
regardless of what the customer orders. I.E. we get our raw material in 10
pound quantities, which will net about 7000 parts. We choose to run our
jobs in lots of 7000 pieces, even if our customers are ordering 3500, 9000
or 20000. We just run more jobs to fulfill the larger orders. It tends to
be a lot cleaner than messing with partial material lots and returning
material to inventory after the run, then eventually ending up with a job
with a bunch of tiny, useless material lots. That's the beauty of standard
costing and running to stock, you are no longer hog-tied to the customer's
order quantities, you can run what makes sense for your business.

However, a large portion of our customers order in standard quantities
(kanban-type things), so our standard changes when the customer changes
their order quantity.

Amy O'Malley
omaLL004@...
Manufacturing Process Engineer
Synovis IS

On Apr 6 2006, Judy Havlik wrote:

>Dear Mark...
>
>This is exactly the type of information I'm looking for. I'm not new
>to Vantage but I am new to this side of Vantage having just moved
>into engineering from customer service.
>
>We do our quotes in Vantage. Let's say the quote shows the following
>for a new part:
>
>When run at a quantity of 4,000 pieces, the costs are listed as:
>Burden - .05002, Labor - .02281, Material - .13013
>
>When run at a quantity of 90,000 pieces, the costs are listed as:
>Burden - .03526, Labor - .01585, Material - .13014
>
>If our first order comes in for a quantity of 4,000 pieces the part
>is entered into Vantage using the costs listed above for the 4,000
>piece price. Then, as the customer continues to order the
>part...let's say all subsequent orders are for 90,000 or 200,000
>pieces, Vantage will still calculate this part using the standard
>costs we entered when we were running 4,000 pieces. That doesn't
>seem like it would give us a very accurate Cost of Goods sold, which
>is why we thought average costs would make more sense.
>
>Sincerely,
>Judy Havlik



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



* Visit your group "vantage <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage> "
on the web.

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
vantage-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:vantage-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


________________________________




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Mark,

I like your approach of costing the job, then being able to measure variance
to that standard. Similar to my other mail, I think looking at what
decisions will be driven by the measurements, then constructing the
measurements is the way to go.


- Alexander


________________________________

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Mark Wonsil
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 4:27 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Re: Standard Costing


Hi Judy,

> We do our quotes in Vantage. Let's say the quote shows the following
> for a new part:

Quotation is more advanced in Vantage than what I'm used to. The ability to
create a new assembly and ship right from an order is very cool.

> When run at a quantity of 4,000 pieces, the costs are listed as:
> Burden - .05002, Labor - .02281, Material - .13013
>
> When run at a quantity of 90,000 pieces, the costs are listed as:
> Burden - .03526, Labor - .01585, Material - .13014

Yes, this makes sense. Your labor and burden will be less because the setup
is
amortized among more parts. There may be more costs due to the consumption of
perishable tooling as well, but that may be already accounted for in the
burden rate.

> If our first order comes in for a quantity of 4,000 pieces the part
> is entered into Vantage using the costs listed above for the 4,000
> piece price. Then, as the customer continues to order the
> part...let's say all subsequent orders are for 90,000 or 200,000
> pieces, Vantage will still calculate this part using the standard
> costs we entered when we were running 4,000 pieces. That doesn't
> seem like it would give us a very accurate Cost of Goods sold, which
> is why we thought average costs would make more sense.

A couple of thoughts:

1) If 4000 is not a usual production run then it's probably not a good number
to use as a standard, right? The standard cost is quite arbitrary - like a
budget. You should make it reflect reality as best you can. If the orders are
equally in 90K or 200K lots, you may want to make your standards based on
105K
for example.

2) Why not recalculate the costs for each order by keeping all of the costs
in
the quote and then shipping from the order. That quoting worksheet is a nifty
utility not found in many other packages. I hope that others will correct me
if I'm wrong, but it seems that doing it this way, each order can have a
different standard cost. If true, one could completely eliminate the lot size
variance issue.

Like you Judy, I'd like to get a ruling on the field.

Mark W.



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



* Visit your group "vantage <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage> "
on the web.

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
vantage-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:vantage-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


________________________________




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Dear Mark...

Thanks so much for your response and for discussing this issue.
Wouldn't it be nice if we knew up front what quantities the customer
would always order so we could average ahead of time, but order
quantities here are as variable as the standard costs and there's no
way to predict it.

I don't know if it makes sense to do an analysis on the quantity
every time we receive an order and then go in and adjust the standard
costs every single time. That seems like a lot of maintenance with
300+ orders each month. I'm not sure why they chose to use standard
costs instead of average costs on finished goods. We use average
costs on purchased parts.

There is certainly plenty of guesswork in the Burden and Labor we
apply to our costs. But even with that being said the general
appearance on many of our parts is that we're losing money..and it
might not show this way if the standard costs matched the run size.
I would think that's a true statement.

Sincerely,
Judy Havlik

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Wonsil" <mark_wonsil@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Judy,
>
> > We do our quotes in Vantage. Let's say the quote shows the
following
> > for a new part:
>
> Quotation is more advanced in Vantage than what I'm used to. The
ability to
> create a new assembly and ship right from an order is very cool.
>
> > When run at a quantity of 4,000 pieces, the costs are listed as:
> > Burden - .05002, Labor - .02281, Material - .13013
> >
> > When run at a quantity of 90,000 pieces, the costs are listed as:
> > Burden - .03526, Labor - .01585, Material - .13014
>
> Yes, this makes sense. Your labor and burden will be less because
the setup is
> amortized among more parts. There may be more costs due to the
consumption of
> perishable tooling as well, but that may be already accounted for
in the
> burden rate.
>
> > If our first order comes in for a quantity of 4,000 pieces the
part
> > is entered into Vantage using the costs listed above for the 4,000
> > piece price. Then, as the customer continues to order the
> > part...let's say all subsequent orders are for 90,000 or 200,000
> > pieces, Vantage will still calculate this part using the standard
> > costs we entered when we were running 4,000 pieces. That doesn't
> > seem like it would give us a very accurate Cost of Goods sold,
which
> > is why we thought average costs would make more sense.
>
> A couple of thoughts:
>
> 1) If 4000 is not a usual production run then it's probably not a
good number
> to use as a standard, right? The standard cost is quite arbitrary -
like a
> budget. You should make it reflect reality as best you can. If the
orders are
> equally in 90K or 200K lots, you may want to make your standards
based on 105K
> for example.
>
> 2) Why not recalculate the costs for each order by keeping all of
the costs in
> the quote and then shipping from the order. That quoting worksheet
is a nifty
> utility not found in many other packages. I hope that others will
correct me
> if I'm wrong, but it seems that doing it this way, each order can
have a
> different standard cost. If true, one could completely eliminate
the lot size
> variance issue.
>
> Like you Judy, I'd like to get a ruling on the field.
>
> Mark W.
>