Re: GJ novice learns fast -- BPCS-L

MacWheel99@aol.com = Al Macintyre

This is a follow-up to the mess described earlier - it is now much smaller.

Thanks to lots of help on & off BPCS_L to me, 
SSA Help-Line & OSG & Crowe Chizek & me to our accountants,
we think we have a good deal of the mess cleaned up.

Normally we summarize all inventory transactions to IN, but an accountant 
made a mistake & changed it to detail, without altering other policies & 
codes, which is being blamed for how come we ended up with IN0000-IN9999 
filled except for 300 random holes, and 1200 batches with non-contiguous #s 
trying to go into the holes.  It is now back at summary.

Using Peggy's information, I supplied the accountants with a reconciliation 
of GJW JE's also in GJH, & what their respective dates were, in which most 
dates were almost identical, going both ways off a few days & a few nowhere 
close.  I asked various hypothetical questions about how exactly we are 
supposed to handle post dated & back dated transactions, & how in fact we 
actually do, to try to clarify which might be transactions that got 1/2 done 
in the GLD540 cancelation & which never got finished.  Thanks to Les 
suggestion I think I might try to reconcile what ITH thinks should have been 
posted to GEN LED.  Is there a status field in ITH that knows its transaction 
has supposedly been migrated to General Ledger?

Someone said that end-month closure resets #s to 1, so that neither the 
posted GJH JE holes, nor the unposted GJW batches, should have random 
numbering all over the map, which they now do.

Crowe Chizek walked our Assistant Comptroller through the process of 
identifying what needs to be posted ... I only hope Susie told Emily about 
the canceled GLD540's which certainly alters the picture.

I wrote a quickie program to change IN to IQ in all GJW records whose 
company-year-period is 10-2000-1 & whose IN#### whatever is already in GJH.  
Before & after execution I ran a totals-only query how many GJW records we 
have of which prefix ... the numbers are in the right ball park ... 1,177 
pairs of IN transactions moved to IQ prefix & my quickie also gave them a 
dump of which IN #s got this done, in sequence.

We will have to read off my quickie # list vs. the 300 page report on what 
they think should be posted, to see if any #s do not match.

My accountants right now are primarily interested in doing what has to be 
done so that they can close out the first fiscal period of year zero, while I 
have been passing on what I think are great ideas to help us in the future.

I love the idea to split IN by type of inventory transaction.  I told 
accounting how to scroll through INV355 to view what goes where to GLD ... I 
thought it was a big deal that some shop floor transactions go to GLD & some 
don't, some scrap does & some does not, suspecting that someone might have 
added some transaction effects without accounting review, but they think the 
effects are correct.

I like Les's idea to modify INV920 to drop location break, and think class 
(ITH field TCLAS) might belong in its place, and possibly customer identity 
for the shipping warehouse.  We have defined our shop floor warehouse as one 
humongous location, and our stock room warehouse as an infinity of tiny cubby 
hole locations.

While desk checking my step by step instructions to the accountants how to 
view GJW via DFU, I discovered we have records in GJW with blank spaces for 
year & period.

There are some unposted GJW from ancient periods, predating last year's 
physical inventory, which I am suggesting we delete, once we figure out how 
to get rid of them, and assuming the accountants agree.

After successful GLD540 posting of GJW to GJH / GJD, are the GJW records 
supposed to "go away" ... I had thought from their prominence on SYS120 that 
they did ... in that case there are another 3,000 records in there still to 
be resolved, before they can wrap up end-month.

We have some internal control problems where most users do not know what 
conflicts with what, are incapable of checking 2nd level help, and the only 
way to get everyone to sign off of things is to vary them off.  There is an 
external NT in the process of being installed in which I have been assured 
that they WILL fix sign-on addresses to be BPCS-compliant, but they are not 
there yet.  The "keyboard" emulation problem is tied into that & has been 
fixed.

MacWheel99@aol.com = Al Macintyre
+---
| This is the BPCS Users Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to BPCS-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to BPCS-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to BPCS-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner: dasmussen@aol.com
+---