Re: 3 way mismatch

Time to upgrade from the 170!!!

Call me!

Mitchell K. Kleinman
Executive Vice President
eFax – 425-940-1954
office fax 949-261-9164
office Direct line 949-261-3298
 
CCS Technology Solutions- 800-274-0042
2532 White Road | Irvine, CA 92614 949-476-0874
mitch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | www.ccseservers.com
 
Are you considering a project for: New ERP solutions, Managed Hosting 
solutions, Managed Email, Managed Web Security, Managed Virus protection, 
UNIX Servers, Intel Servers, Network Appliances, Server and/or Storage 
Consolidation, LPAR consulting, VMWare consulting and implementation, 
Imaging/Document/Content Management, IP Telephony, CISCO, VPN Solutions, 
Disaster Recovery/High Availability, Performance analysis/Capacity 
planning, RF/RFID or Barcoding? Call me to see what we can do for you, and 
hear about what we have done for other clients!
 



Al Mac <macwheel99@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: bpcs-l-bounces+mkleinman=ccseservers.com@xxxxxxxxxxxx
10/26/2006 09:36 PM
Please respond to
SSA's BPCS ERP System <bpcs-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


To
"BPCS_L discussion" <bpcs-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc

Subject
[BPCS-L] 3 way mismatch






   We are 405 CD mixed mode on V5R1 AS/400 model 170.

   Recently I was tasked with helping reconcile "unvouchered payables" 
where
   we have received raw material but not yet been vendor invoiced.  I am
   finding lots of problems, wondering how other BPCS places deal with 
this
   stuff.   The last time I had any formal education in accounting, that 
was
   maybe 45 years ago.

   We have a General Ledger Account to track this total which never agrees
   with PUR210 total.  These two are off by $ 3 k one day, $ 12 k the next
   (out of grand total around $ 120 k).  We use standard cost, summarize
   inventory to GL.  Our stocking UM is same as selling and purchasing. We
   are multi-facility.

   PUR210 "standard cost" times uncosted quantity equals "extended" NOT
   always but extended is correct (agrees with CST300) more often than 
unit
   cost does.  I tried to dig into the logic to figure out what it is 
doing &
   seems to me it starts with premise that facility costs are to be 
ignored.

   We have not modified PUR210, but I have a clone PUR210B sequencing the
   report by vendor name, and other readability enhancements.

   As of tonite's input to GL,
   The "corrected" totals (based on CST300 math) are $ 2,827.19 below the
   PUR210 vanilla totals of extended cost.  The GL balance is between the
   two.

   I find a few cases of data entry error & try to fix, using negative U & 
C
   to back out what was done wrong, notifying relevant persons with item 
#s I
   fixed why, but when a PO line is completed, BPCS won't accept a
   correction, so I use A to correct the inventory, which means General
   Ledger stays off by the el typo.  Can a reason code be added to "A" for
   this kind of scenario to get G/L right?

   New items are typically uncosted until after a successful 3 way match
   completion, then we make standard cost a copy of the actual.  This 
means
   the purchasing process went into Gen Led at zero cost inventory, with
   material variance through the roof.  It seems to me unreasonable burden 
to
   intercept A/P invoices on items whose standard cost is zero, do the 
BPCS
   ACP500 math manually to get standard cost fixed, then go ahead and 
enter
   the invoices.

   -
   Al Macintyre
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AlMac
   http://www.ryze.com/go/Al9Mac
   BPCS/400 Computer Janitor ... see
   http://radio.weblogs.com/0107846/stories/2002/11/08/bpcsDocSources.html