|
Dale, I'm afraid that I may have stated the consequences of RI and PQ transactions incorrectly. I guess this is how it works: RI: Adds qty to LQNTY (Loc Qty)in file SLQNTY (Item Locations) PQ: Adds qty to MOHTQ (On-hand Qty) in file ITEMBL (Item Warehouses) Actually our test environment is down and I haven't had the opportunity to test these processes. -Nandu -----Original Message----- From: DaleGindlesperger@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:DaleGindlesperger@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 11:49 AM To: MAPICS ERP System Discussion Subject: Re: Receipt-to-Stock/Inspection Nandu, We had a similar situation in the past at our company, and were leaning hard towards your "option 2". Our biggest concern was that the material/parts don't show as on-hand for MRP until the "RP" is processed, which can cause a lot of headachs for Purchasing. In our case, the situation went away before we decided (changed vendors and how we acquired the parts). However, we currently do a lot of your "option 1" methodology for shipping our product. We are in the opposite situation - we need to relieve our inventory of product as soon as it is shipped, but we cannot bill until it is actually delivered (SEC regulations). So we just do a "TW" into an in-transit warehouse, then invoice and relieve all inventory on delivery confirmation. That works very well - the biggest benefits are that accounting knows exactly what is in-transit and we still have full visibility in the system. I know that if we had to choose what to do today, we would pick "option 2" over the alternative. I think you have better auditing control (IMHIST, actual on-hands in inventory locations, and so on). Dale Gindlesperger IT Manager/Special Projects Leader Fleetwood Folding Trailers, Inc. Somerset, PA "Nandagopal Padmanabhan" To: <mapics-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <npadmanabhan@xxxx cc: as-awt.com> Subject: Receipt-to-Stock/Inspection Sent by: mapics-l-bounces@x idrange.com 08/25/2003 01:37 PM Please respond to MAPICS ERP System Discussion Hello Group, We have an interesting business situation. We are the American subsidiary of a Danish manufacturing company and we procure 99% of our components from our parent company. Our parent company sends us invoices as soon as the components are shipped from Denmark and based on the agreement between the parent company and the subsidiary, all invoices get paid even before the components arrive at the American warehouses. To facilitate invoice processing in MAPICS, we have been doing a receipt-to-dock process upon receiving invoices from our parent company. This ensures that invoices get processed and at the same time the components are not in stock. However, our Finance department is not comfortable with this entire process because at any given point in time, we have a huge amount of inventory on our books, but we don't have those components in our MAPICS warehouses. All our warehouses are controlled warehouses. The challenge that we are faced with is to design a process which will help us get away from our current process. I have two thoughts on my mind: Option 1: Set up a transit warehouse with a unique location for each of our warehouses. So every time we get an invoice, we can perform a receipt-to-stock into a location (unique to the warehouse the components are being shipped to). As soon as the warehouses physically receive the components, they can do an inter-warehouse transfer to move the items from the transit warehouse into their warehouse. Option 2: Set up a quality control process where the components are received (RI transaction) into the actual stocking warehouses and flagged to go through a quality control process. Upon physically receiving the components, the warehouse can perform quality control transactions (PQ) to approve the items and make them available for consumption. >From an inventory and procurement viewpoint, Option 2 is going to work better as item availability at the item-warehouse level gives us an overview of what's on-hand, on-order, allocated for a given warehouse and we don't have to take into consideration what is in another warehouse (transit). I would like to know about some important inventory/procurement/financial implications of Option 1 and Option 3. I would also like to get other ideas using which an appropriate solution can be implemented. Look forward to your responses. Thanks, Nandu Nandagopal Padmanabhan Data Analyst | Vestas-AWT _______________________________________________ This is the MAPICS ERP System Discussion (MAPICS-L) mailing list To post a message email: MAPICS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/mapics-l or email: MAPICS-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/mapics-l. _______________________________________________ This is the MAPICS ERP System Discussion (MAPICS-L) mailing list To post a message email: MAPICS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/mapics-l or email: MAPICS-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/mapics-l.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
