Ahhhh …
@JasonMcD - you look at all the details of a PLT-STK tran in the "Inventory Transactions Technical Reference Guide " ?
Ahhhh …
@JasonMcD - you look at all the details of a PLT-STK tran in the "Inventory Transactions Technical Reference Guide " ?
Yeah, no, it’s a monster, this one.
From the Inventory Tran Doc …
Selection Criteria:
(COSAndWIP--PartTran--Details--Tran Type = PLT-ASM OR
COSAndWIP--PartTran--Details--TranType = PLT-MTL OR
COSAndWIP--PartTran--Details--Tran Type = PLT-STK )
And COSAndWIP--PartTran--Details--IsReverted = False
And COSAndWIP--PartTran--site Transfer--Is InterDivisional = True
From just one of the many trans:
Calvin,
I’m not really clear what that is telling me, except it posts to revenue accounts if it’s a PLT-something type and is interdivisional.
So, back to the topic…
If my mystery GL really is related to the customer, what customer do I use? How is there a customer on a plant transfer (single company)?
I mean, I guess if I don’t use it, I don’t care. But I fear the day I get bit by it.
FYI, thanks to an old post from @hmwillett, I now know what the PE Log Viewer is and how to track the logic. Very cool.
So I never see the mystery account being checked, but I think if it’s not defined I won’t see it anyway.
I should have directed you to the Posting Engine Tech Ref. It has pseudo code (an example below) showing (if you can decode it) the GLC’s and contexts used.
For the
PLT-ASM/PLT-MTL/PLT-STK: Post Extended Cost to AR Transfer and Contra AR Accounts
Executed for PLT-ASM, PLT-MTL, PLT-STK transactions. Posts Extended Cost amount to AR Transfer and Contra AR accounts. Debit and Credit accounts depend on sign of the Extended Cost amount.
Posting Rules
Modifiable items display in bold.
Select Amount From COSAndWIP--PartTran Where Name = Extended Cost AND CurrencyType = Transactional
If Transaction Amount is not Available Call = End Rule
If Transaction Amount.Value = 0 Call = End Rule
If Transaction Amount.Conversion Date is not Available COSAndWIP--Details--TranDate
Convert Transaction Amount To Book Currency Using Default Rate Type
Comment = Comment: Determine AR and Contra AR Accounts
Get Account From COSAndWIP--PartTran--site Transfer--GL Control
For Current Book AND AR (From site) Context
Get Account From COSAndWIP--PartTran--site Transfer--GL Control
For Current Book AND Contra AR Context
If AR Account = Contra AR Account Comment = Comment: When quiting rule before
setting up debit and credit accounts - rule does not produce GL Journal Details
Call = End Rule
If Book Amount.Value > 0 AR Account
Debit Context = Transfer AR (Ext Cost)
Contra AR Account
Credit Context = Contra AR (Ext Cost)
Else
Invert Book Amount Sign
Invert Transaction Amount Sign
Contra AR Account
Debit Context = Contra AR (Ext Cost)
AR Account
Credit Context = Transfer AR (Ext Cost)
somehow my memory tells me the customer and customer AR come into play in situations where one site sells a product to a customer which is actually shipped by another site - and where the DLT/PLT components in your interdivisional accounting get all excited.
i haven’t been in that area of the system in a while, so i obviously need to check my math
i have some old implementation notes which may provide some better insight.
i will review and post them up asap
Al,
OK, so you’re thinking it’s a very obscure scenario that would involve the customer. Interesting.
On a tangent about another obscure scenario, I did learn by happenstance that I can make a job in site A and receive it to site B and it becomes a de facto make-to-transfer-order.
I point this out because #4, the product group, actually has two possibilities - first, the product group on the job if there is one, then, failing that, the product group on the part itself. That nugget was buried in the PE Log viewer.
Do you have more details on this?
We only mfg at site A, but often ship to site B to join other parts for the order. So we have to
And this requires a qty bearing Part Num in plants A and B. Often this PartNum will never be used again.
Calvin,
I’ll do my best explaining this.
For my experiment, the gist is:
This is my stream-of-consciousness notes:
But it sounds like you are thinking of a part-on-the-fly on the sales order.
If you are wanting like MFG-PLT and PLT-CUS, I’d say you are out of luck there, since the only PLT-x transacions are PLT-ASM, PLT-MTL, and PLT-STK.
So even though the part could never be received to Stock (because non-Qty Bearing), it lets you make a Demand to stock on the job?
And that whole part about using a Job Receipt in site B (for a job in site A) AND the receive TO, is mind boggling. I’d have thought that the Job Receipt and the TO receipt would both increase the QOH at B.
And I thought you had to specify a TO Packnum in order to receive it? How you doing that when one was never created from site A?
What I’d like is a MGF-STK, with Plant=A, Plant2=B
Ideally, we’d have a MFG-CUS, with Plant=A, Plant2=B. I.E.- built in A, shipped from B
Ideally, we’d have a MFG-MFG, with Plant=A, Plant2=B. then do a MFG-CUS
I.E.- built in A, transferred to from Plant A WIP to Plant B WIP, then shipped from B’s WIP.
This is the classic “This doesn’t make any sense, but I’ll try it anyway because I want this to work.” Et voila.
The job receipt (which is really the shipment) appears to have created transfer pack #7 and tied it to TO # PDC-MFG-000004 *
And then I must have received against pack 7. (This was a month ago, so I’m a little fuzzy.)
Again, it’s best to think of the job receipt as a transfer shipment. That’s why quantities do not double.
As to your idea, the only thing I could see is two jobs, one in each plant. I.e. MFG-PLT, then PLT-MTL, and then MFG-CUS, and the second job has one line of material, itself again. Sounds like a lot of work, though.
*(EDIT) FYI, I regret the transfer order prefixes I chose. They wound up being the opposite of what I expected.
When you create the Job Demand as “To Stock”, do you have to specify the site?
What Trans do the “Job Recpt to Inv” create?
The normal flow (with the GL’s hit) would be:
Business Process TranType GL Debited GL Credited
Issue Mtl to Job At Site A STK-MTL WIP-A INV-A
Receive Job to Stock A MFG-STK FG-A WIP-A
TO Shipment from A to B STK-PLT In-Tran FG-A
TO Receipt at B PLT-STK FG-B In-Tran
Shipment to Cust from B STK-CUS AR Accrual FG-B
Does your method combine some of those? Since your part isn’t QtyBearing at A, it can’t have any ‘STK’ tran types (for plant A).
So MFG-STK combines with STK-PLT, for a single MFG-PLT transaction? Which also automatically creates a TO shipment (and magically matches up with the prior Transfer Order)?
Well, we are getting close to the end of my accounting knowledge. I ran this experiment again, since the original was on a busy day, transactionally.
Here is the inv-wip report, with no interdivisional accounting, for simplicity. (I didn’t ship to customer yet.)
I may not have all the accounts flexed properly on the PDC side (site B), so this is probably confusing.
And I did not specify the correct site on the job; I just received it where I wanted it.
And yes to all of that. Just verified it again with this experiment.
EDIT - FYI, the reference “4 parts to PDC” was my comment on the job receipt to “inventory,” so it carries through all of those transactions, apparently, even though the transfer receipt was a separate transaction that I manually did.
That’s interesting.
I wouldn’t expect the system to allow creation/receipt of orders for a non-qty bearing part; nonetheless, complete a receipt automatically. but if it is happening the accounting must be there.
I’ve checked all my previous notes and most always they refer to multiCOMPANY setups.
So they’re not much help. im going to try to reproduce this in a test
Al,
Just to be clear, the original question in the post was a generic one - not necessarily related to the magic transfer I was talking about.
Also, I was on the phone with Support this morning about this. It took forever to get him on the same page that you all jumped on immediately. But anyway, after 35 minutes, he had no useful answer except to promise to forward my ticket to someone else on his team.
He says, well I guess it doesn’t matter. I said, then change the manual. And this went in a circle a few times.
No sweat. I don’t expect a quick turnaround.
It’s an interesting item; I would like us all understand it accurately.