RE: GJ novice learns fast

["Wolf, Roger" <Roger.Wolf@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Title: RE: GJ novice learns fast

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?

The TSTAT field in the ITH files gets a "Y" in it after INV920 processes it.  This tells if it has been posted or not.

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.

We had the same problem.
It is not uncommon especial with posting "B" transaction action.
To bad it does not go to alpha characters after 9999.

 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.

We do have each transaction type post to its own journal source code.

Good Luck. 

Best Regards,
Roger Wolf

BPCS 405 CD  AS/400 model 720 V4R3M0