V8.00.810 BOM Costs

Yahoo Archive
1
> You are right again. They want to see it. Also our part data (boms)
> are imported from another package thru service connect. The transfer
> was setup by an epicor consultant. The current import does not utilize
> the alternate method so the primary BOM gets populated.
>
> Perhaps its time to figure out how service connect actually works;-)

The other option, if you're looking at the import process, is to have this
information populate the Purchasing Notes for the part instead of or in
addition to adding it to the engineering files.

When you move to 8.03, you'll have access to BPM which can do some of this
kind of work as well.

Best,

Mark W.
2
Hello group

We recently noticed unexpected results from some of our cost roll ups.
We found the problem to be with our purchased parts that contained a
BOM. We thought the cost roll up routine ignored the BOM if a part
was flagged as a purchased part. We were wrong. We use the BOM on a
purchased part for rev control. We usually do not go thru the trouble
of pricing all the parts in the BOM and even if we did the total BOM
costs for a purchased part will never equal the purchase price. This
is a real problem for us. Does anyone else use BOMs on purchased
Parts? What do you do to get the correct standard material cost for
the part?

Mark
3
Hello Mark,
> We recently noticed unexpected results from some of our cost roll ups.
> We found the problem to be with our purchased parts that contained a
> BOM. We thought the cost roll up routine ignored the BOM if a part
> was flagged as a purchased part. We were wrong. We use the BOM on a
> purchased part for rev control. We usually do not go thru the trouble
> of pricing all the parts in the BOM and even if we did the total BOM
> costs for a purchased part will never equal the purchase price. This
> is a real problem for us. Does anyone else use BOMs on purchased
> Parts? What do you do to get the correct standard material cost for
> the part?

You're the second company to bring this up in the past year. I don't think I
heard a solution then but there's something you could try. Use an alternate
method called "Purchased" for these parts. During the roll up, indicate that
you DON'T want to use alternate methods. You'll have the MOM for revision
control and the roll-up should ignore the alternate method.

Mark W.
4
Hello Mark

Thanks for the idea. I thought this would work but it does not. I have
a part with a Bom totaling $10.00 and defined an alternate with a BOM
totaling $100.00. When I run the rollup the outcome of the rollup is
always $10.00 regardless of the load alternate method flag. Have you
used this flag on the rollup screen?



Mark



________________________________

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Mark Wonsil
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 9:15 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vantage] V8.00.810 BOM Costs



Hello Mark,
> We recently noticed unexpected results from some of our cost roll ups.
> We found the problem to be with our purchased parts that contained a
> BOM. We thought the cost roll up routine ignored the BOM if a part
> was flagged as a purchased part. We were wrong. We use the BOM on a
> purchased part for rev control. We usually do not go thru the trouble
> of pricing all the parts in the BOM and even if we did the total BOM
> costs for a purchased part will never equal the purchase price. This
> is a real problem for us. Does anyone else use BOMs on purchased
> Parts? What do you do to get the correct standard material cost for
> the part?

You're the second company to bring this up in the past year. I don't
think I
heard a solution then but there's something you could try. Use an
alternate
method called "Purchased" for these parts. During the roll up, indicate
that
you DON'T want to use alternate methods. You'll have the MOM for
revision
control and the roll-up should ignore the alternate method.

Mark W.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
5
> Thanks for the idea. I thought this would work but it does not. I have
> a part with a Bom totaling $10.00 and defined an alternate with a BOM
> totaling $100.00. When I run the rollup the outcome of the rollup is
> always $10.00 regardless of the load alternate method flag. Have you
> used this flag on the rollup screen?

Well, that makes sense. If you have the main Rev with a MOM that adds up to
$10 then that's what I would expect to see. I set up the primary MOM with
nothing and a roll up did not seem to change the standard material cost (I
quickly through together a roll-up and thought I did it correctly...)

Now before we get far in doing that, let's take a second to make sure this is
what you want. Yes, "the old system worked that way", and so did mine, but
what do you really want to accomplish? Great, we get a way to get the
Engineers to work the way they used to work. Now, how does that information
get used? Do you included this information on the PO to the Vendor? If so,
putting the parts and drawing information needs to be in notes somewhere. So
think the process through to the end to make sure that after you make the
engineers happy that you'll still be able to do business.

Mark W.
6
--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Wonsil" <mark_wonsil@...> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the idea. I thought this would work but it does not. I
have
> > a part with a Bom totaling $10.00 and defined an alternate with a
BOM
> > totaling $100.00. When I run the rollup the outcome of the rollup
is
> > always $10.00 regardless of the load alternate method flag. Have
you
> > used this flag on the rollup screen?
>
> Well, that makes sense. If you have the main Rev with a MOM that
adds up to
> $10 then that's what I would expect to see. I set up the primary
MOM with
> nothing and a roll up did not seem to change the standard material
cost (I
> quickly through together a roll-up and thought I did it
correctly...)
>
> Now before we get far in doing that, let's take a second to make
sure this is
> what you want. Yes, "the old system worked that way", and so did
mine, but
> what do you really want to accomplish? Great, we get a way to get
the
> Engineers to work the way they used to work. Now, how does that
information
> get used? Do you included this information on the PO to the Vendor?
If so,
> putting the parts and drawing information needs to be in notes
somewhere. So
> think the process through to the end to make sure that after you
make the
> engineers happy that you'll still be able to do business.
>
> Mark W.
>
Costing with alternate methods is a tricky process and will not work
the way you think. Remember, a part can only have one cost. The
cost of a part will come from how the Plant Cost ID record is defined
and what Cost ID you use when you roll up the part. For a part to
cost using the alternate method the Plant Cost ID must be defined to
use Alternate methods. Also, for it to cost correctly every assembly
defined in the BOM must have an alternate method. We use alternate
methods extensively but at the moment we do not cost our parts using
it. We run with standard cost and simply tolerate the variances we
get. Hope that helps. If you need more info please let me know and
I will try to explain it better.
7
Hi Charles,
> Costing with alternate methods is a tricky process and will not work
> the way you think. Remember, a part can only have one cost. The
> cost of a part will come from how the Plant Cost ID record is defined
> and what Cost ID you use when you roll up the part. For a part to
> cost using the alternate method the Plant Cost ID must be defined to
> use Alternate methods. Also, for it to cost correctly every assembly
> defined in the BOM must have an alternate method.

Excellent point about the Plant Cost records, I had failed to mention that. In
Mark's case however, he DOESN'T want the cost to roll up for purchase parts
with MOMs that are used only for engineering rev control purposes. The problem
that he was having was these "documentation only" MOMs were getting rolled up
when he didn't want them to. This is why I suggested stuffing them into an
alternate method.

Best,

Mark W.
8
Hi Guys



It seems that the rollup process ignores the alternate method. Will the
load alternate methods check box under the plant cost id change this?



Mark D.



________________________________

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Mark Wonsil
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:58 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Re: V8.00.810 BOM Costs



Hi Charles,
> Costing with alternate methods is a tricky process and will not work
> the way you think. Remember, a part can only have one cost. The
> cost of a part will come from how the Plant Cost ID record is defined
> and what Cost ID you use when you roll up the part. For a part to
> cost using the alternate method the Plant Cost ID must be defined to
> use Alternate methods. Also, for it to cost correctly every assembly
> defined in the BOM must have an alternate method.

Excellent point about the Plant Cost records, I had failed to mention
that. In
Mark's case however, he DOESN'T want the cost to roll up for purchase
parts
with MOMs that are used only for engineering rev control purposes. The
problem
that he was having was these "documentation only" MOMs were getting
rolled up
when he didn't want them to. This is why I suggested stuffing them into
an
alternate method.

Best,

Mark W.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9
Hi Mark,
> It seems that the rollup process ignores the alternate method. Will the
> load alternate methods check box under the plant cost id change this?

Maybe you could explain your requirement again. I thought that you didn't want
the Engineering information on buy parts to roll up because they won't equal
to the actual purchase price. Did I miss something?

Mark W.
10
Hi Mark



That is correct. I added an alternate method to the revision with no
BOM hoping the rollup would use this alternate. With no BOM the rollup
should use the existing STD Mtl value.



Mark D



________________________________

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Mark Wonsil
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 9:35 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Re: V8.00.810 BOM Costs



Hi Mark,
> It seems that the rollup process ignores the alternate method. Will
the
> load alternate methods check box under the plant cost id change this?

Maybe you could explain your requirement again. I thought that you
didn't want
the Engineering information on buy parts to roll up because they won't
equal
to the actual purchase price. Did I miss something?

Mark W.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
11
> That is correct. I added an alternate method to the revision with no
> BOM hoping the rollup would use this alternate. With no BOM the rollup
> should use the existing STD Mtl value.

I was suggesting the opposite. Have the primary MOM have no MOM and put the
engineering data in an alternate rev. When I tested this, it left the Std.
Matl value alone after a roll-up.

I still have this gut feeling that once you get past the engineers, you're
going to have to deal with purchasing and suppliers who'll want to see this
info too...

Mark W.
12
You are right again. They want to see it. Also our part data (boms)
are imported from another package thru service connect. The transfer
was setup by an epicor consultant. The current import does not utilize
the alternate method so the primary BOM gets populated.



Perhaps its time to figure out how service connect actually works;-)



Thanks for your feedback



Mark D.



________________________________

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Mark Wonsil
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:04 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Re: V8.00.810 BOM Costs



> That is correct. I added an alternate method to the revision with no
> BOM hoping the rollup would use this alternate. With no BOM the rollup
> should use the existing STD Mtl value.

I was suggesting the opposite. Have the primary MOM have no MOM and put
the
engineering data in an alternate rev. When I tested this, it left the
Std.
Matl value alone after a roll-up.

I still have this gut feeling that once you get past the engineers,
you're
going to have to deal with purchasing and suppliers who'll want to see
this
info too...

Mark W.





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