That was also a problem for us since day 1. Aside from the most basic quantity information, we found that we had to write our own summarizations. We had problems with RS transactions and negative quantity transactions messing up quantities, as well as the TW/IW/RWs. It was very frustrating every time we hired someone new that thought those fields held good numbers. Aside from MOHTQ, and the allocation quantities (basically, everything used by MRP calculations seemed good, the rest not so good....), we didn't believe any quantities stored in ITEMBL. Instead, we pulled numbers for the ranges from IMHIST, and summarized.

I also suspect our problems were made worse by using a 13-period accounting system and closings. I always suspected everything was designed for calendar closings, because the numbers went really weird after we changed to 13-period accounting.

Dale "Cork" Gindlesperger

-----Original Message-----
From: mapics-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:mapics-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Al Gershen
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 11:57 AM
To: Mapics Mailing List
Cc: Al Gershen
Subject: [MAPICS-L] Why do Interwarehouse Issues (IW) increment the USEMO field?

Hi group:

A person in our Purchase Department inquired of me why the EAANU (Estimated Annual Usage) of a particular Inventory Item Number was so high?

I looked at the Item Number's IM (Inventory Management) Transaction History Inquiry Screen and found the the following had occurred during one recent Period:

1. There was only one purchase of the item;

2. All that was purchased was transferred from our company's main warehouse to the main warehouse at our other plant; and

3. At the other plant's main warehouse, approximately 5% of the inventory was used in manufacturing.

The EAANU calculation includes the usages reported by the USEMO field and this field's usages include IW transfers.

In this situation the large IW transfer distorted our main warehouse's EAANU calculation such that our Purchasing Department might end up ordering too much of the Inventory Item Number in the future.

On the other side of the coin, the RW (Interwarehouse Receipt) by the receiving warehouse has no offsetting affect on the USEMO field.

What is the basis for including the IW transfer as an "Issue" in the USEMO field?

I suggest that this should be an option offered by the IM Mapics Infor Questionnaire.

I look forward to your comments on this matter.

Al Gershen
Cost Accountant Lead
ECS Composites
Grants Pass, OR

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,
or email: MAPICS-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2022 by 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.