Transaction Types E9

We experienced the same thing when upgrading from 6.1 to 8.03.408. For us the issue was that our parts do not have standard costs but the costing method selected in part maintenance was std. As a result, Vantage was interpreting this to mean the part std. costs = $0.00, so all costs on the make direct job were variances. The system then used the MFG-VAR transaction type instead of the MFG-CUS transaction when we shipped the parts. Once we changed the costing method to average, the system started using the MFG-CUS transaction type and was posting costs correctly through AR clearing before moving them to COS, based on the product group.


Virginia Joseph
Deep Hole Specialists, LLC


--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "claire_paul@..." <claire_paul@...> wrote:
>
> We have an issue with COS postings. E9 is defaulting to transaction type MFG-VAR should be using MFG-CUS which means costs are posted straight to COS not going through AR Clearing. Is this to do with the company set up?
>
We have an issue with COS postings. E9 is defaulting to transaction type MFG-VAR should be using MFG-CUS which means costs are posted straight to COS not going through AR Clearing. Is this to do with the company set up?
I think it depends on the type of shipment, and the type of costing, if it comes from WIP etc. In most cases, the Product Group is at the top of the heap, then company.

----- Original Message -----
From: claire_paul@...
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 5:55 PM
Subject: [Vantage] Transaction Types E9



We have an issue with COS postings. E9 is defaulting to transaction type MFG-VAR should be using MFG-CUS which means costs are posted straight to COS not going through AR Clearing. Is this to do with the company set up?





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Thank you, we have 'post to cost of sales' checked on the Direct Ship Standard Job Cost Variances. Do you think this is incorrect? I questioned this when our production member of the implementation team set this section up but was over ruled. Should 'post to Product Group' be checked instead? We migrated from Vantage 6 (so basically this was a new implementation) and we have not come across this before.

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "cooner_55421" <cooner_55421@...> wrote:
>
>
> Not sure if this is it or the same in 9 but...
> Have you looked at Company Config, Modules, Job, Direct Ship Standard Cost Job Variances?
>
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "claire_paul@" <claire_paul@> wrote:
> >
> > We have an issue with COS postings. E9 is defaulting to transaction type MFG-VAR should be using MFG-CUS which means costs are posted straight to COS not going through AR Clearing. Is this to do with the company set up?
> >
>
I’m not sure if its related but we’re in the process of upgrading to 9 from 6.1 and found that a make direct job for a standard cost part in 6.1 will post the actual cost to COS whereas the behavior in 9 has been changed so that it will post standard cost to COS and a variance. We haven’t found any way to change what is posted to COS whilst keeping standard cost but it is possible to use ‘use adjusted cost’ on the SGM report to view gross margin based on actual costs (I think the actual costs are stored in the invoice detail).



Chris





From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of cooner_55421
Sent: 07 November 2010 21:46
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Re: Transaction Types E9





Hi,

I can't be sure it will do what you want.
I would use a test environment before I'd make any changes like this.
(Even if somebody promised me it would work).

Bruce

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , "claire_paul@..." <claire_paul@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you, we have 'post to cost of sales' checked on the Direct Ship Standard Job Cost Variances. Do you think this is incorrect? I questioned this when our production member of the implementation team set this section up but was over ruled. Should 'post to Product Group' be checked instead? We migrated from Vantage 6 (so basically this was a new implementation) and we have not come across this before.
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , "cooner_55421" <cooner_55421@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Not sure if this is it or the same in 9 but...
> > Have you looked at Company Config, Modules, Job, Direct Ship Standard Cost Job Variances?
> >
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , "claire_paul@" <claire_paul@> wrote:
> > >
> > > We have an issue with COS postings. E9 is defaulting to transaction type MFG-VAR should be using MFG-CUS which means costs are posted straight to COS not going through AR Clearing. Is this to do with the company set up?
> > >
> >
>




Chris Henzel Epicor 9 Project Manager Tel: +44 (0)1582 436150 Mob: 07836 314164


This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the intended recipients. If you are not an intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this email. Please notify the sender if you have received this email by mistake and delete it from your system.Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of email transmission. Registered Office: Hayward Tyler Ltd, 1 Kimpton Road, Luton, LU1 3LD, England. Tel: +44 (0)1582 731144. Company No. 3450138.



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