Why isn't "Division" actually a thing in Epicor?

[JasonMcD (Jason McDermott)]

This is a rant, I suppose, since there’s no changing the foundational structure of the Kinetic financial system now. But I wanted to spell out what’s kind of there just below the surface with any multi-entity implementation. (The stuff you only learn by accident long after you are deep into implementing.)

So, where I work we have

• 1 company (Company table)
• 2 divisions
• 3 sites (Plant table)

Divisions… yeah.

So, what I mean is that in our company, inventory (for example) hits one of two accounts

• 1300.RID.00 (for site A and site C)
• 1300.PDC.62 (for site B)

RID and PDC are the “divisions” for us.

You say, “But that’s YOUR setup - not everyone’s COA is a 3-segment with division at the center.”

Well, OK, but it sure is assumed throughout Kinetic.

Division is somewhat of a half-implemented concept in Kinetic.

@LarsonSolutions and I hinted at this yesterday

Configuration of new site

@JasonMcD - is right if you don’t work some magic around customers and suppliers. I have setup another company where they didn’t want to share suppliers or customers across sites, but they didn’t want to do multi-company. Using Predictive search and a UD field, I made it easy for them to find Suppliers and Customers related to the logged in site. We also setup a BPM to prevent using a supplier/customer in the wrong site. For GL - if you assign a GL control to the supplier - you can map a di…

“Division” kind of wants to be a site; it kind of wants to be a warehouse; it kind of wants to be above them both - in the same way that a Cost Set can encompass multiple sites.

I think that’s the clearest analog to Division, is Cost Set. And that’s what started this rant today.

I am trying to revise a BAQ I made for inventory aging. I need to consider two of my sites as one division - though they have separate transaction histories. That was OK, till I tried to tie in the (standard) cost.

This subquery is bad enough for a single site (plant). Now try to do this with 2 sites but they are both related to the same cost set. (You don’t have to actually weigh in; it’s just to make the point.)

I think this would be easier if there was a link to Division (not a real table) and the cost sets tied to Division, not the Plant. Maybe. Ah, it might still be miserable.

[jkane (John Kane)]

I have always considered the “Division” as the Site.

The same thing can be said for Department. It can be used for actual departments in your Company or it can be used for capturing sales, but not both (based on what the consultant told me 10 years ago).

[JasonMcD (Jason McDermott)]

@jkane

Department. It can be used for actual departments in your Company or it can be used for capturing sales, but not both

I think that’s right. At least I cannot imagine how you could use them for both.

[JMPCONJ (John Magee)]

We use it as a primary business “channel” of sorts. Works for us just like it did on our old ERP so accounting’s happy I guess

[Hally (Simon Hall)]

@jkane

based on what the consultant told me 10 years ago).

Memory like and Elephant… How can you remember that?