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
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.