Re: 3 way mismatch -- BPCS-L

   On the eve of EOM, we are $ 15 k off between $85.7 k total of PUR210 and
   $67.8 k in the GL account, factoring in $ 2.8 k off at the end of last
   month, which means it is getting worse, much worse.

   I believe the expected cost on PUR210 should agree with the current
   standard cost for those items.  Am I correct in that assumption?  When
   PUR210 cost is recomputed on that basis, then the GL is only off $ 11.9 k,
   which is still far too much.

   In ACP500, we have recently begun posting the difference between
   Unvouchered Standard Cost and Payable Invoice Cost into Raw Material
   Variance (what we actually pay, different from standard cost) & I am
   wondering if the ACP500 access to standard cost is as flawed as that from
   PUR210.

   Most of our people hate the BPCS audit trails, do not use them, instead we
   key in stuff, then do BPCS inquiry & some reports to see if what's there
   looks right.  This means we have a systemic pattern of how we fail to fix
   errors properly.  We see that something did not get in, so we rekey it. 
   What we don't see, is what went in that should not have. So long as we do
   not know the scale of the stuff entered that should never have been
   posted, there is no company desire for the BPCS audit trails to be
   redesigned to be more useful.

   Suppose a vendor delivers 91234Y and the people key in 91234X by mistake,
   realize something is wrong when they are checking the paperwork vs. what's
   in the system, get the correct 91234Y entered, but not realize the 91234X
   is there needing to be corrected ... it is easy to see that a receipt is
   missing, and get that entered, it is not so easy to see what was keyed in
   error that needs backing out, so when I ask for vendor shipping document
   on 91234X that is on the PUR210, I am asking for a phantom that no one
   will ever find. 

   My boss has more experience with some of this than me & has suggested some
   ideas I should have thought of.

   He suggests we ask some vendors for statements, which will lost all unpaid
   invoices, which we can then match with the invoices we do have, see which
   we need to ask for copies of, and see what receipts are phantoms because
   there is no vendor invoice for them on their statements.

   This will help clear stuff off the 3 way mismatch, but I don't believe it
   will fix the ugly $ difference.

        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
     --
     This is the SSA's BPCS ERP System (BPCS-L) mailing list
     To post a message email: BPCS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
     To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
     visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/bpcs-l
     or email: BPCS-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
     Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
     at http://archive.midrange.com/bpcs-l.

     Delivered-To: macwheel99@xxxxxxxxxxx