Thank you, this is a rabbit hole I intend to research. It may help us out.
1 Like
Unrelated,
What “BUG” were you trying to get Epicor to fix related to this?
5 Likes
You don’t have to tie a Forecast to a customer, you can just enter a generic forecast quantity for the company.
7 Likes
Right! thanks John I couldn’t remember if it was required. That’s even better becaue then it accounts for the double demand problem. Which MPS does not
1 Like
Well, we’ve tried it and didn’t like it. To explain why will be to expose additional bad unusual processes that will invite further criticism. I should probably reply to the other things before I go down that rabbit hole…
You mentioned forecasts don’t double demand and orders consume the forecast. Right. But MPS does double up demand, right? Nothing consumes MPS demand IIRC.
OK well you got there already. Typing too slow
3 Likes
Yes, Forecast is the best solution in this instance.
I’m pissed I forgot about it 
. I was going down a dummy hole with my suggestion.
7 Likes
If it makes you feel better, I will shortly be exposing some of ours for the world to see so we can get torn to shreds valuable feedback on how to improve our processes.
You are not alone.
11 Likes
I was wondering who would take that bait. Long story, but…
A MFG-CUS transaction took more money out of WIP than was there.
You can do that on purpose with a MFG-STK transaction (Job Receipt to Inventory and there’s a place to override costs). But this is not supposed to be possible with MFG-CUS.
The amount was wild.
So you know how material value itself is broken up into Mtl Mtl and Mtl Lbr and so on?
Somehow it is grabbing only the Mtl Lbr and Mtl Bur (but not “Material Burden”) - the standards from the components - and double-counting them.
4 Likes
It’s good to see that we aren’t the only ones that struggle with handling certain situations.
I’m enjoying this thread.
6 Likes
I can’t imagine why you would not like it, it just puts demand in the system.
Sometimes you want the system to ask nicely instead!
7 Likes
That does feel like a bug, but also I feel like you should’nt be allowed to receive Make Direct to Stock so I’m siding with the overlords Epicor on this one 
.
6 Likes
PFFFT! No us! we are the Epitome of good behavior and best pracitices! We don’t at all buy stuff from ourselves, sell it to ourselves and bill our selves within the same site or anything that’s so weird why did you even bring up that very specific scenario?
6 Likes
What do you do then if you’ve built it and the customer cancels before you ship to them?
2 Likes
Change the demand source in job Entry, and remove the MTO Link before receiving the job.
1 Like
You change the demand link, THEN receive it to stock.
4 Likes
Because it works better than the transfer order module?
4 Likes
Exactly, but it was a Make direct BEFORE removing the link 
In this tottally fincticious scenario I would argue that transfer orders don’t do AR / AP Transactions. But its irrelevant cause this is totally not something we do… 
Lets focus on Jason’s bad practices shall we?
7 Likes
No, I am happy for once to derail this thing. No worries!
I know there is sarcasm here, but they can perfectly normally do that with Interdivisional Accounting. Look up the phrase – I am literally like the only person that posts about it, except that one time.
1 Like