This bug is confirmed...
The issue of Cost Set rollup not working correctly is a known bug and is
being addressed by Development. Basically, as you can see towards the
end
of the document below, you will have to run the rollup for each level in
order to get the correct cost.
****************************************************************************
*************************************
NOTE: The Cost Roll Up Functionality has changed in Version 5.0. See
Document Below. The document describes how it is currently working.
This
is a known issue and Development is currently working on it.
In 5.00, SCR 1064 introduced a change that caused the BOM Cost Report
(Advance Bill of Material > Reports > BOM Cost Report) and the View Cost
button (found in Inv Mgmt > Part Master > Revision > BOM) to not use the
part master cost for non-standard costed subassemblies instead of
rolling up
the related method.
The two issues are:
1. We have taken away functionality from 4.00. Many users used this
report
and view to see what the rolled up cost of the method was regardless of
the
costing method of the subassemblies. Now, with a multi-level assembly,
the
subassemblies do not get rolled up but instead their part master costs
are
used.
If I have a single level BOM, these two features will correctly roll up
the
method even though the part is not standard costed. This inconsistency
between main level and subassembly adds to the confusion.
2. For non-stock subassemblies that are not standard costed, we are
forcing
the user to maintain the part master costs manually to be able to
utilize the report in 5.00 in the same manner they did in 4.00.
If I am building a multi-level assembly in 5.00 and it has a non-stock
subassembly, I want to know based on its method what it will cost me,
not
whatever the part master cost is because I don't stock it and never
will.
However, to get the same functionality out of the report and view, I
would
have to manually update the part master costs for each assembly.
What we need is to give the user the option of whether or not they want
the
subassemblies rolled up in the report and view no matter what the
costing
method is.
Steps to duplicate:
1. Create 2 parts in the part master file. Part Sub is a subassembly
whose
method contains one operation and one material. Part Parent is the
parent
assembly whose method contains the same operation and same material as
part
Sub's method and also contains part Sub as a subassembly that is marked
as
pull and view as assembly. Make sure that both parts are average costed
and
do not do any cost adjustments.
2. Run the BOM cost and look at the costs via the View Costs button.
Notice
that only the costs related to the parent item are given because the
subassembly is average costed. But yet we roll up the parent item's
method
to get the parent level's cost even though it too is also average
costed.
The above issue gets even deeper if we throw Cost Set Entry into the
mix.
1. Create 3 parts in the part master file. Part Sub2 is a subassembly
that
has one material and one operation. Part Sub is a subassembly whose
method
contains the same material and operation as Sub2 and also contains Sub2
as a
subassembly marked pull and view as assembly. Part Parent is the
parent
assembly whose method contains the same material and operation as Sub2
and
also contains part Sub as a subassembly marked as view and pull as
assembly.
Basically, we've created a 3 level assembly where each level has the
identical costs because the material and operations attached to each
level
is identical. Make sure that each part is average costed and do not do
any
cost adjustments.
2. Create a Cost Set group using the option of Costing Method. Note that
all
three parts default into the group at zero. (Assume that each level has
a
total cost related to the method of $7.50).
Running the cost rollup once produces the following costs as displayed
in
the cost group:
Parent = $15.00
Sub = $7.50
Sub2 = $7.50
Run the rollup again against the same cost set and notice the following
costs:
Parent = $15.00
Sub = $15.00
Sub2 = $7.50
One more time, run the rollup against the same cost set and notice the
following:
Parent = $22.50
Sub = $15.00
Sub2 = $7.50
I had to run the rollup 3 times (once for each level) so that the cost
of
the parent item is correct. I can then replace the Standard cost for
this
part if I wanted to but all I really wanted to do in this example is to
see
what my total cost was for the parent item based on the rollup of all
three
levels. DO NOT POST THIS GROUP see step 3.
3. Do not post the cost set created in the above step. Instead, go back
to
the part master and make Sub2, Sub and Parent all standard costed.
Create
another cost set using the selection criteria of Costing Method. Notice
the
costs that default into the three parts.
4. Run the cost rollup once. Notice that the costs correctly display as:
Parent = $22.50
Sub = $15.00
Sub2 = $7.50
The above changes has made the visibility of costs of non-standard
costed
assemblies that do not hit inventory very difficult to view.
Craig Kumpula
Joe Konecny wrote:
The issue of Cost Set rollup not working correctly is a known bug and is
being addressed by Development. Basically, as you can see towards the
end
of the document below, you will have to run the rollup for each level in
order to get the correct cost.
****************************************************************************
*************************************
NOTE: The Cost Roll Up Functionality has changed in Version 5.0. See
Document Below. The document describes how it is currently working.
This
is a known issue and Development is currently working on it.
In 5.00, SCR 1064 introduced a change that caused the BOM Cost Report
(Advance Bill of Material > Reports > BOM Cost Report) and the View Cost
button (found in Inv Mgmt > Part Master > Revision > BOM) to not use the
part master cost for non-standard costed subassemblies instead of
rolling up
the related method.
The two issues are:
1. We have taken away functionality from 4.00. Many users used this
report
and view to see what the rolled up cost of the method was regardless of
the
costing method of the subassemblies. Now, with a multi-level assembly,
the
subassemblies do not get rolled up but instead their part master costs
are
used.
If I have a single level BOM, these two features will correctly roll up
the
method even though the part is not standard costed. This inconsistency
between main level and subassembly adds to the confusion.
2. For non-stock subassemblies that are not standard costed, we are
forcing
the user to maintain the part master costs manually to be able to
utilize the report in 5.00 in the same manner they did in 4.00.
If I am building a multi-level assembly in 5.00 and it has a non-stock
subassembly, I want to know based on its method what it will cost me,
not
whatever the part master cost is because I don't stock it and never
will.
However, to get the same functionality out of the report and view, I
would
have to manually update the part master costs for each assembly.
What we need is to give the user the option of whether or not they want
the
subassemblies rolled up in the report and view no matter what the
costing
method is.
Steps to duplicate:
1. Create 2 parts in the part master file. Part Sub is a subassembly
whose
method contains one operation and one material. Part Parent is the
parent
assembly whose method contains the same operation and same material as
part
Sub's method and also contains part Sub as a subassembly that is marked
as
pull and view as assembly. Make sure that both parts are average costed
and
do not do any cost adjustments.
2. Run the BOM cost and look at the costs via the View Costs button.
Notice
that only the costs related to the parent item are given because the
subassembly is average costed. But yet we roll up the parent item's
method
to get the parent level's cost even though it too is also average
costed.
The above issue gets even deeper if we throw Cost Set Entry into the
mix.
1. Create 3 parts in the part master file. Part Sub2 is a subassembly
that
has one material and one operation. Part Sub is a subassembly whose
method
contains the same material and operation as Sub2 and also contains Sub2
as a
subassembly marked pull and view as assembly. Part Parent is the
parent
assembly whose method contains the same material and operation as Sub2
and
also contains part Sub as a subassembly marked as view and pull as
assembly.
Basically, we've created a 3 level assembly where each level has the
identical costs because the material and operations attached to each
level
is identical. Make sure that each part is average costed and do not do
any
cost adjustments.
2. Create a Cost Set group using the option of Costing Method. Note that
all
three parts default into the group at zero. (Assume that each level has
a
total cost related to the method of $7.50).
Running the cost rollup once produces the following costs as displayed
in
the cost group:
Parent = $15.00
Sub = $7.50
Sub2 = $7.50
Run the rollup again against the same cost set and notice the following
costs:
Parent = $15.00
Sub = $15.00
Sub2 = $7.50
One more time, run the rollup against the same cost set and notice the
following:
Parent = $22.50
Sub = $15.00
Sub2 = $7.50
I had to run the rollup 3 times (once for each level) so that the cost
of
the parent item is correct. I can then replace the Standard cost for
this
part if I wanted to but all I really wanted to do in this example is to
see
what my total cost was for the parent item based on the rollup of all
three
levels. DO NOT POST THIS GROUP see step 3.
3. Do not post the cost set created in the above step. Instead, go back
to
the part master and make Sub2, Sub and Parent all standard costed.
Create
another cost set using the selection criteria of Costing Method. Notice
the
costs that default into the three parts.
4. Run the cost rollup once. Notice that the costs correctly display as:
Parent = $22.50
Sub = $15.00
Sub2 = $7.50
The above changes has made the visibility of costs of non-standard
costed
assemblies that do not hit inventory very difficult to view.
Craig Kumpula
Joe Konecny wrote:
>
> Possible bug... I have not received feedback yet from tech on this.
> It's a major problem if it's true.
>
> *********************************************************************
> 3-23-01 680113 - OPEN
> Craig
>
> Cost set entry does not appear to roll up the correct amount
> for material, labor and burden compared to the BOM cost
> report. Part 600-2741 is an example.
>
> *********************************************************************
>
>
> To access the Files Section of our Yahoo!Group for Report Builder and Crystal Reports and other 'goodies', please go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/. Note: You must have already linked your email address to a yahoo id to enable access.
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/