|
midrange.com
Peggy,
We have an extremely similar situation. We set up phantom work centers to
handle this. Basically, if the subassembly/assembly shouldn't have the
labor (or related) costs to be included, we assign it to be run across a
workcenter with no rates (7P177, for example). If you want the labor (or
related) costs to be included, we run it across the "actual" workcenter
that has rates (70177).
We put times and such in both workcenters to facilitate scheduling and
capacity.
If Steve Hans is on this thread, he designed this solution for us in 1986,
and we've been using it ever since.
Dale Gindlesperger
IT Manager/Special Projects Leader
Fleetwood Folding Trailers, Inc.
258 Beacon Street
Somerset, PA 15501
"Shimko, Peggy"
<PShimko@automati
cproducts.com> To
Sent by: <mapics-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
mapics-l-bounces@ cc
midrange.com
Subject
COSTING PROBLEMS WITH USING
11/11/2004 03:09 PHANTOMS IN SUBASSEMBLIES
PM
Please respond to
MAPICS ERP System
Discussion
<mapics-l@midrang
e.com>
We are looking for a solution to our phantom subassembly costing
problem.
Currently we use phantoms defined as a subassembly in two separate
scenarios:
.
1. As a repair part sold to customers.
The phantom has a routing for contract (outside) services so the proper
cost and appropriate selling price can be determined.
2. As a subassembly that is immediately consumed by the
next production operation.
The phantom in Scenario #1 is a sub-assembly of a higher level
component. This higher level component has its own separate routing
which includes the cost of ALL contract services needed to complete the
higher level component. [This "all" cost includes the cost for
assembling and incorporating the scenario #1 subassembly into the higher
level component - the contractor quotes the higher level assembly costs
separately - and, the contract cost for the higher level can be lower
than the scenario #1 costs due to volume].
The Phantom has the same part number in both scenarios. For example:
The cost of the Repair Part (Scenario #1) rolls up into the projected
cost of the higher level component (Scenario #2). Consequently, the
higher level component production cost is overstated for inventory and
inflates the cost of the higher level component.
When the production job is purged for the Scenario #2 component, the
cost relating to the contract costs of the Phantom Repair Part (Scenario
#1) is not included in the Bill of Material (Scenario #2). As a result,
the Production Job close-out computes a favorable variance, increasing
inventory value again.
The Company does not want to change the item type from phantom to 1 or 2
because that will increase the administrative effort required to plan
and monitor inventory.
Is there an alternative method of using phantoms that will provide
accurate inventory values and production costs?
We welcome all suggestions to assist us in resolving this problem.
Peggy Shimko
Gross Given Manufacturing Company
Phone: 651-290-4362
Fax: 651-224-3609
E-Mail: pshimko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
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.
