Re: UML and Amount calculation version 6.04

[Al Mac <macwheel99@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

There are a ton of PUR reports ... some of them show the expected cost.  If 
you look in BPCSDOC (file in BPCS library list in which each member is a 
separate document) all those prefixed SSARUN are "run manuals" one per 
application ... there should be one just for Purchasing, which describes 
the kind of stuff on each report.
I just basically asked the Purchasing Manager, because I had only limited 
interest in figuring out something, not on-going interest.  I also showed 
the ACP500 lady how to access PUR300 & reminded her to use F11 to explode 
screen from basic data.
Part of the problem is, I think, we are drowning in flawed 
paperwork.  Every vendor uses a different layout for invoices & paperwork 
going with the materials.  Many of them can't seem to consistently get the 
right #s for our PO# and part #s.  What we ordered & what they sent in this 
partial shipment, is like in the opposite place on another vendor 
paperwork.  I am surprised we have as few transcription errors as we do.
Our ACP500 lady is very pleased with the modified version of PUR210 that I 
came up with, which bold prints activity more than a few weeks old & not 
yet resolved, any cases of mismatch between ordered, received, costed and 
where expected cost disagrees with standard cost.  I also changed the 
vertical sequence, so it is by vendor name, with a banner across page when 
vendor changes.
You might figure out how to track a running total from receiving and "C" 
transactions of what should have gone in and out of G/L ... what I call 
"net change" for the month.  If the problem is in G/L balance forward and 
not in continuing transactions, that can be a help.
I did the end fiscal year over a weekend, then on the Monday afterwards, my 
boss used the reports to figure out a bunch of end month and end year 
adjustments.  Come to find out, after a lot of hair pulling, the 
transactions posted retro-actively to last fiscal year periods updated 
those period ending balances, but did not change the beginning balances for 
the new year.
How come we did not know about this from previous year fiscals?

Well previous last year it was someone else doing the end year adjustments, 
and a year ago we were not so particular about balancing the General ledger 
details that now we track very closely.  A case of corporate memory 
slippage when tasks shift to other people.
So your huge out could just be aggregate of end year adjustments posted to 
retroactive fiscal period dates, after the end year fiscal weekend.
I fixed this on a later weekend by re-running the preliminary end year, 
which among other undocumented things (that 15% surprise area), updated 
beginning year balances for 2007 to agree with end year 2006.
We have had a recurring problem with corporate memory and personnel 
turnover.  Imagine a person who has been doing 25 different tasks well, 
then after they have left, the company replacement personnel are only aware 
of 15 of the tasks.
So for example, we have some facilities and  sister companies with which we 
exchange materials.  Some managers want to use the BPCS ordering process, 
shipping receiving etc. standard processes to handle these transfers, on 
the theory that the more stuff done the same way, less chance of messups.
However, at the same time, other managers not want us to be processing the 
full accounting cycle to be paying  sister companies, and being paid by 
sister companies, like we do with real outside customers & vendors, so at a 
point in the BPCS cycle, the need to do cash flow with our sister companies 
is kind of erased, but it has to be done just right, to avoid a build up of 
UMI, or unfulfilled orders, or open accounts, etc. etc.
So we have a solution, that works, but it might not be written up good, 
according to ISO guidelines, because yet another bunch of managers think it 
violates GAAP and not want to advertise that to the auditors.  This means 
trouble any time someone tries to change the process, or one of the key 
players no longer with the company.  You might check whose AS/400 security 
lets them change things in BPCS data base outside of BPCS security.
3-way match ... PO, receipt, invoice
is extremely complicated ... at one time our ACP500 lady thought it was Ok 
if the $ amounts matched, but what could happen is the quantities did not, 
which caused problems when next shipment invoice came along.
Also receiving and purchasing staff could find some entry was made wrong, 
and BPCS let them fix it, but this was after an invoice got entered that 
matched the original wrong receiving paperwork.
My boss is mainly interested in getting the General Ledger correct.
With different people focused on getting different things fixed, and 
overlooking consequences elsewhere, we need to be doing a better job with 
overall corrections management.
If your A/P total in G/L has been extremely reliable for long time, and on 
checking ending balance for 2006 vs. opening balance for 2007 does not 
explain it, you might have been hit by a rounding error.
BPCS has a systemic problem in allowing proper work fields for math.
Under IBM guidelines there is supposed to be a work area to put digits that 
go beyond the scope of the numbers being crunched, but BPCS software 
habitually ignores this, which often messes up the least significant digit.
So if your $ are off by 0.00001 or 0.00002, or have gone into the negative 
0.00001 or 2 that is probably this systemic rounding error.  Once in a blue 
moon, this bug can cause some number to wrap around to like the inverse of 
what it should be ... for example, the number should be 10.00 but instead 
you get 99999999999 every place there should be a zero.  Then if you not 
catch this fast when it happens, the value propagates itself all over the 
place in a cascade of trouble.  There are times it pays to go outside the 
system and force a fix.  We probably abuse that.
Unbeaten Path education is the greatest ... have you seen their manuals?
You also need something more detailed than their manuals for some of this 
type of figuring out.
You might want to start another thread when this is played out.
Physical Inventory is one place we found several cases of that 15% 
exception where what really happens diverges from the rules and documentation.
We also struggling with "black hole" production inventory.

We Make-to-Order Wiring Harnesses for OEM customers in a spectrum of 
industries.
Al Macintyre

> This is great information and I thank you very much for the detail.  UML
> (Unmatched Liability) is what you are calling unvouchered.  From your
> research and findings - was there a screen or field you could reference to
> see how the PO receipt will be valued prior to the receipt transaction
> occurring?
>
> Our "ACP500 lady" has also expressed the same experiences you described
> and she recently took over the AP position from an hourly person who
> processed "like a robot" - unfortunately I need more process thinking in
> this position, supply chain management of AP.  Well, in the course of this
> transition, our A/P accounts, which has never been the problem, developed
> a couple of million dollar difference between the aging report in BPCS and
> the G/L.  This has never happened, I have always been able to rely on this
> account being in balance, if not the UML or unvouched material account. So
> now all my A/P accounts are out of balance and although I see the problem,
> macros are systematic in nature, I cannot find anymore in the alias,
> macro, events, what the system is referencing for the calculations.
>
> I will review these other threads.  We are an automobile supplier
> manufacturing company and we have detailed bill of materials, a 6800
> account that seems to be a "black hole" for production reporting which the
> balance is just put back into inventory each month, an MRP system that is
> managed with external Excel spreadsheets and I have been a champion of
> creating a work environment that forces employees to input accurate data
> into BPCS, we've had a great company Unbeaten Path come train us,
> management is visual on the financial implications of misunderstanding of
> BPCS, yet I cannot yet that complete understanding I need in order to
> reconcile our payables and inventory correctly.  We are doing quarterly
> physical inventories this year so we limit our inventory variances and
> catch them quicker.  I know it stems from many issues here, in processes,
> but in order to provide guidance I have to know what I am talking about
> with BPCS and these exceptions I find do not help.  But don't get me
> wrong, the improvements we have made in "BPCS reimplementation project"
> has improved many things, I just need more understanding of the G/L
> effects.  I appreciate BPCSs AS400 environment and try to write as many of
> my own query reports, etc. but even my IT support has troubles giving me
> direction with the AP issues and costing and I believe my IT support is
> very knowledgeable.  So we will just keep trying and do some of the
> exercises you have illustrated below.  Thank you very much.
>
>
>
>
> Al Mac
<snip> see archives
: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/bpcs-l