RE: item costs (was: no subject)

I think that we are getting off of the original subject which was,
standard costs in FG that are different because of inventory transfers
etc causing the margins to skew when the items are shipped.

Correct?

Daniel J. Sweeney       
Senior Technical Consultant
PHOENIX Business Consulting, Inc.
Matching What's New With What Already Works!
P. O. Box 237, Greensburg, PA 15601
Tel: 724.836.4446 x9, Fax: 425.988.7102
Cell:  860-490-6712    E-Fax: 832-550-5144
dsweeney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.phoenixbcinc.com
        

SSA GLOBAL Recognized Services Provider

-----Original Message-----
From: bpcs-l-bounces+dsweeney=phoenixbcinc.com@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:bpcs-l-bounces+dsweeney=phoenixbcinc.com@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Frederick C Davy
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 7:38 AM
To: SSA's BPCS ERP System
Subject: Re: [BPCS-L] item costs (was: no subject)

To Al Mac,

To try to manage multiple facilities by actual cost is like trying to 
thread a moving needle, but your best approach for the least amount of 
effort and cost would be to create facility specific lot numbers. This 
would always provide a trace to the specific purchase/shop order and the

related actual cost (at least until CST900 was run). Good luck.




Al Mac <macwheel99@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: bpcs-l-bounces+amkavoulakis=sealinfo.com@xxxxxxxxxxxx
10/12/2005 05:00 PM
Please respond to
"SSA's BPCS ERP System" <bpcs-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


To
"SSA's BPCS ERP System" <bpcs-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc

Subject
Re: [BPCS-L] item costs (was: no subject)






To Daniel @ PHOENIX

So long as the inventory is unique item # in unique facility, the
costing 
is satisfactory.  The problem is the mandate to combine inventory into 
consolidated customer orders.  By doing this, the costs get all mixed
up, 
and they do not like that.  So the question becomes if there is a way to

preserve costing accuracy at the same time as satisfying the
consolidated 
customer orders mandate.  Plus do so without modifications.  Implied is 
also the notion of doing so with a minimum of clerical overhead.

When combining differently costed item structures of two different items

into one item, or same item from two facilities, not only do we lose
cost 
tracking granularity, the costs are no longer accurate.

It makes sense for costs to evolve over time, because of effect of 
inflation on cost of labor, cost of materials, new machines mean more 
efficient production, etc. but in this case there are good reasons why 
parts from different facilities will always have different costs, that 
need 
to be tracked.

You might want to fwd to your consultant the link to this thread in the 
BPCS_L archives.  The feedback was accurate in a general perspective,
but 
it did not recognize the granularity of the problem being discussed
here.

Also, in 405 CD, our ITH gets cost sets 1-actual & 2-standard.  System 
Parameters determine which go to the General Ledger (we use 2-Standard) 
and 
other costing settings.

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