V8 - Stock Status Report Problem

yes we usually line up with our G/L on all reports. The DMR had us messed up for a while until we realized that parts moving in out of inspection to dMR etc were ping ponging around in the GL accounts. so we created 2 accts -one for inspection and one for dmr.


----- Original Message ----
From: patrick.weaver <patrick.weaver@...>
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 11:01:51 AM
Subject: [Vantage] Re: V8 - Stock Status Report Problem

Thanks for your comments. In fact we do not use average costing, but
we do use both standard cost and last cost (depending on whether we
are making the parts to stock or to a job).

We too run the Stock Status report at the end of the last business
day. Even so the report has never tied out to the G/L. One problem
we have surfaced is connected with the Quality module, and scrap
transactions, and DMR ...

Does your Stock Status report, that you schedule print at the end of
the last business day of the month before closing, agree or
reconcile to your G/L? Have you every seen the value of parts on the
Stock Status report change without a corresponding entry going to
the G/L?

Epicor has advised us that this issue "... has received an SCR which
will be fixed for the 811C patch which is targeted to be released 8-
8-07 currently. They are also working on getting us a fix to create
the missing transactions. "

--- In vantage@yahoogroups .com, RSN <rsnsfi@...> wrote:
>
> Patrick, Just a thought- are you using average costing? If so does
the Part Transaction History Tracker show any changes on the running
qtys and amounts on a sample part. We've discovered that the Stock
status report is a moving target and I schedule print this one at
the end of the last business day of the month before closing.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: patrick.weaver <patrick.weaver@ ...>
> To: vantage@yahoogroups .com
> Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2007 12:12:05 PM
> Subject: [Vantage] Re: V8 - Stock Status Report Problem
>
>
> We are on ver 8.0 (since Dec 2006). We just closed the books for
June
> and encountered a BIG problem with the Stock Status Report - the
value
> of a couple parts on the report jumped from something like $4.00
per
> unit to over $14.4k per unit - and there was NO corresponding entry
> posted to the G/L. So since there were about 175 units on hand at
the
> end of June, the Stock Status Report now is out of balance with
the G/L
> by a cool $2.5 million. We looked at the G/L transactions and also
the
> Inventory / WIP reconciliation report - no G/L transactions for
this.
> And there were quantities on-hand all month long (i.e. no
situations
> where the QOH dropped to zero and therefore a cost change times
zero
> equals no transaction ....)
>
> Has anyone been able to get a bullet-proof Stock Status report that
> reconciles with the G/L? How do users reconcile any perpetual
reports to
> the G/L?
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups .com, "Joe Rojas" <jrojas@> wrote:
> >
> > I don't know for sure.
> >
> > We discovered the problem because of the same GL issue you are
having.
> >
> >
> >
> > Joe Rojas
> >
> > Information Technology Manager
> >
> > Symmetry Medical TNCO
> >
> > 15 Colebrook Blvd
> >
> > Whitman MA 02382
> >
> > 781-447-6661 x7506
> >
> > jrojas@
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________ _________ _________ __
> >
> > From: vantage@yahoogroups .com [mailto:vantage@ yahoogroups .com]
On
> Behalf
> > Of vanebewe
> > Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 7:47 AM
> > To: vantage@yahoogroups .com
> > Subject: [Vantage] Re: V8 - Stock Status Report Problem
> >
> >
> >
> > Is this also a problem with the 8.0 Version? We are having a
problem
> > tieing out the Stock Status Report successfully to our General
> > Ledger.
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups .com <mailto:vantage% 40yahoogroups.
com> ,
> "Joe
> > Rojas" jrojas@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Has anyone encountered the problem with the Stock Status Report
> > where
> > > when you select an "as of" date in the past it shows the
current
> > on hand
> > > quantity?
> > >
> > > I called Tech Support and they say it is a known problem with
not
> > > solution just yet. Just thought I would let people know.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > We are on 8.03.304C
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Joe Rojas
> > >
> > > Information Technology Manager
> > >
> > > Symmetry Medical TNCO
> > >
> > > 15 Colebrook Blvd
> > >
> > > Whitman MA 02382
> > >
> > > 781-447-6661 x7506
> > >
> > > jrojas@
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
____________ ___
> Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s
user panel and lay it on us.
http://surveylink. yahoo.com/ gmrs/yahoo_ panel_invite. asp?a=7
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>






____________________________________________________________________________________
Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.
http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
We may be moving our 6.1 version to a new server - I cannot find my
minimum requirements except that we need a dual processor with
mirrored drives (not RAID 5). Do you guys recall? Also, will Windows
2003 work with 6.1 and Progress 9.1D?
--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Sue" <siverson@...> wrote:
>
> We may be moving our 6.1 version to a new server - I cannot find my
> minimum requirements except that we need a dual processor with
> mirrored drives (not RAID 5). Do you guys recall? Also, will Windows
> 2003 work with 6.1 and Progress 9.1D?
>

Our server is windows 2000, so I would assume 2003 would be good as
well. Our server for 6.1 is currently on a p3 400 mhz with 500 ram.

James
We may be moving our 6.1 version to a new server - I cannot find my
minimum requirements except that we need a dual processor with
mirrored drives (not RAID 5). Do you guys recall? Also, will Windows
2003 work with 6.1 and Progress 9.1D?
We may be moving our 6.1 version to a new server - I cannot find my
minimum requirements except that we need a dual processor with
mirrored drives (not RAID 5). Do you guys recall? Also, will Windows
2003 work with 6.1 and Progress 9.1D?
--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Sue" <siverson@...> wrote:
>
> We may be moving our 6.1 version to a new server - I cannot find my
> minimum requirements except that we need a dual processor with
> mirrored drives (not RAID 5). Do you guys recall? Also, will Windows
> 2003 work with 6.1 and Progress 9.1D?
>

Our server is windows 2000, so I would assume 2003 would be good as
well. Our server for 6.1 is currently on a p3 400 mhz with 500 ram.

James
--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Sue" <siverson@...> wrote:
>
> We may be moving our 6.1 version to a new server - I cannot find my
> minimum requirements except that we need a dual processor with
> mirrored drives (not RAID 5). Do you guys recall? Also, will Windows
> 2003 work with 6.1 and Progress 9.1D?
>

Our server is windows 2000, so I would assume 2003 would be good as
well. Our server for 6.1 is currently on a p3 400 mhz with 500 ram.

James
We may be moving our 6.1 version to a new server - I cannot find my
minimum requirements except that we need a dual processor with
mirrored drives (not RAID 5). Do you guys recall? Also, will Windows
2003 work with 6.1 and Progress 9.1D?
--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Sue" <siverson@...> wrote:
>
> We may be moving our 6.1 version to a new server - I cannot find my
> minimum requirements except that we need a dual processor with
> mirrored drives (not RAID 5). Do you guys recall? Also, will Windows
> 2003 work with 6.1 and Progress 9.1D?
>

Our server is windows 2000, so I would assume 2003 would be good as
well. Our server for 6.1 is currently on a p3 400 mhz with 500 ram.

James
We may be moving our 6.1 version to a new server - I cannot find my
minimum requirements except that we need a dual processor with
mirrored drives (not RAID 5). Do you guys recall? Also, will Windows
2003 work with 6.1 and Progress 9.1D?
We may be moving our 6.1 version to a new server - I cannot find my
minimum requirements except that we need a dual processor with
mirrored drives (not RAID 5). Do you guys recall? Also, will Windows
2003 work with 6.1 and Progress 9.1D?
--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Sue" <siverson@...> wrote:
>
> We may be moving our 6.1 version to a new server - I cannot find my
> minimum requirements except that we need a dual processor with
> mirrored drives (not RAID 5). Do you guys recall? Also, will Windows
> 2003 work with 6.1 and Progress 9.1D?
>

Our server is windows 2000, so I would assume 2003 would be good as
well. Our server for 6.1 is currently on a p3 400 mhz with 500 ram.

James
We may be moving our 6.1 version to a new server - I cannot find my
minimum requirements except that we need a dual processor with
mirrored drives (not RAID 5). Do you guys recall? Also, will Windows
2003 work with 6.1 and Progress 9.1D?
--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Sue" <siverson@...> wrote:
>
> We may be moving our 6.1 version to a new server - I cannot find my
> minimum requirements except that we need a dual processor with
> mirrored drives (not RAID 5). Do you guys recall? Also, will Windows
> 2003 work with 6.1 and Progress 9.1D?
>

Our server is windows 2000, so I would assume 2003 would be good as
well. Our server for 6.1 is currently on a p3 400 mhz with 500 ram.

James
--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Sue" <siverson@...> wrote:
>
> We may be moving our 6.1 version to a new server - I cannot find my
> minimum requirements except that we need a dual processor with
> mirrored drives (not RAID 5). Do you guys recall? Also, will Windows
> 2003 work with 6.1 and Progress 9.1D?
>

Our server is windows 2000, so I would assume 2003 would be good as
well. Our server for 6.1 is currently on a p3 400 mhz with 500 ram.

James
We may be moving our 6.1 version to a new server - I cannot find my
minimum requirements except that we need a dual processor with
mirrored drives (not RAID 5). Do you guys recall? Also, will Windows
2003 work with 6.1 and Progress 9.1D?
Vista 6.x will run just fine on Windows 2003 server.



Thanks,



Jason Claggett

Microsoft Small Business Specialist

MCP #3856159

2W Technologies, LLC

317.578.2393

jason@...





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
We may be moving our 6.1 version to a new server - I cannot find my
minimum requirements except that we need a dual processor with
mirrored drives (not RAID 5). Do you guys recall? Also, will Windows
2003 work with 6.1 and Progress 9.1D?
Vista 6.x will run just fine on Windows 2003 server.



Thanks,



Jason Claggett

Microsoft Small Business Specialist

MCP #3856159

2W Technologies, LLC

317.578.2393

jason@...





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Sue" <siverson@...> wrote:
>
> We may be moving our 6.1 version to a new server - I cannot find my
> minimum requirements except that we need a dual processor with
> mirrored drives (not RAID 5). Do you guys recall? Also, will Windows
> 2003 work with 6.1 and Progress 9.1D?
>

Our server is windows 2000, so I would assume 2003 would be good as
well. Our server for 6.1 is currently on a p3 400 mhz with 500 ram.

James