Topic: Assembly Build Single Item Cost
|By: Guest||Posted on: Sep 1 2021 at 11:34:16 PM|
|Hi is there a way to make the single item cost not include overkit parts, Or does it change by itself to spread the overkit cost accross the build quantity over time? everything is showing at double its real cost because the overkit is rounding up to 1 component even if at set at 1% and is then adding on the cost of that component to the single assembly cost so its not an accurate representation of the assembly cost?|
|By: Guest||Posted on: Sep 2 2021 at 02:05:26 AM|
|further info, this is compound adding extra cost from sub assemblies to assemblies then again is throwing out stock value reports by miles because all this extra cost adds here as well... this is a significant bug.|
To get the single item build cost accurately it first needs to calculate the line total correctly by adding the percentage of the value of the overkit item to the value of the item multiplied by the qty per number and then sum all of the Line Total values.
LineTotalCost[x] = ((QtyPer * CostEach) + ((Overkit / 100) * CostEach))
then add all the line totals together.
what it is doing instead now which is wrong;
LineTotalCost[x] = (QtyPer * CostEach)
if Overkit > 0 then LineTotalCost[x] += CostEach
then adding all the line totals together.
it might sound right but in the real world who is going to lose one of every item when they are building a total of one finished assembly? that's ridiculous.
|By: Support||Posted on: Sep 2 2021 at 03:55:18 AM|
|It's worked this way for many many years so we'd be reluctant to change it now. If we did it would cause a lot of problems for people who are using it the way it is.|
It's mainly for high volume manufacturing cases where a large quantity of a component are being consumed and the loss is tiny but quite consistent. When there is a loss it's a whole component that's lost. Not a fraction of a component.
There will certainly be cases where it can't be usedl. For example small quantity builds using high value materials where the cost of the overkit could, in theory, exceed the value of the consumed materials.
|By: Guest||Posted on: Sep 2 2021 at 05:05:59 AM|
|I think your forgetting that everybodys stock valuations are completely wrong if you do nothing about it. when you make a build of 100 items the cost of each item is a completely different number than the number you are multiplying to value the stock, if you have overkit set as 2% then that build would assume loss of 2 parts and the value of that is divided accross all 100 assemblies and cost applied accordingly within the job, and the cost of one of those single items was the total of [qty per costing] plus the small fraction of the 2 items, not one item lost on every single assembled unit. but when you do the stock valuation you are multiplying the cost of the assembly in the latter way (as if one item was lost on every assembly, although it was only 2 and the user has set this 2% and would expect it to be accurate at least to some degree)|
You should also be able to see a cost value of a single item at any time for calculating what you want to sell it for and monitor it to see if you need to increase sale prices because of increase in component supply prices but this cant be used for that at all everything is already showing much higher cost than it should. I don't build small quantities my batches of products range in size from 50 to 1000 units and I see this as a huge flaw.
for one if trying to see what your margins are on your products is impossible without exporting the bom and doing the maths in something else like excel or creating work order, opening it up to see the bom and manually dividing the total bom cost in the bottom corner by the build qty with a calculator, you should be able to just look at the number in the assemblies list but that number is of no representation of the cost of the assembly if you are using the overkit percentages (which I think is unwise to not use)
secondly if you use the number that your stock valuation generates for insurances or statements to the tax office to show the value of your inventory (which is required here in some cases but I don't know about other countries) then you are lying to them. Knowing that this is wrong you couldn't in good conscience do this because you can get in some real trouble.
The stage you are at having been doing it this way for years there should be a bulletin release explaining the error and some way of optionally choosing how it should be calculated in future versions so its the users decision whether they want it correct as per the new way or to leave it, even if its just an ini file.
|By: Guest||Posted on: Sep 2 2021 at 05:08:39 AM|
|Not to mention if you have competitors and can't work out how they are selling something cheaper, this could be why.|
|By: Guest||Posted on: Sep 27 2021 at 11:59:33 PM|
|Any update on this? what is the plan to resolve this issue?|
|By: Support||Posted on: Sep 29 2021 at 12:02:53 PM|
|It doesn't need resolving because it's not see as a bug or issue that needs resolving. In Microsoft Terminology, good or bad, it's "By Design".|
In 25 years you are the only person to ever mention this as a potential problem.
However. I do understand what "Guest" means.. Maybe the single product build cost should not include the cost of OverKit items. But we have the problem that if we changed the current behaviour just for you then that would affect 25 years worth of other users who are accustomed to the current functionality.
But. After all that. I have put this in to the ToDo list so it will be looked at. If there is any was to change the current behaviour without screwing up everyone else then we'll look at it.
But I'm not going to give any lead time. Sorry.
|By: MichaelAtUSR||Posted on: Sep 30 2021 at 04:01:18 AM|
|We have components that cost fractions of a cent. Whenever we use them I can guarantee that some get lost. Having 1 or 2 percent overkit, which gets rounded up to a whole number/quantity, is correct. After all. I can't over-consume half of a component. This kind of component is what the OverKit feature was designed for.|
But I have another component. A microprocessor. This costs around $15. We obviously don't loss many of those. But we do lose some. But even on a high quantity job I don't overkit them. If one gets dropped then the build gets stopped while we investigate the cause and then go to the stores and book out a replacement. Overkit was not designed for this kind of component.
I get the impression that the original poster's component is not compatible with the Overkit feature and the feature should not be used for that component.
Reply - add a comment to this topic.
You may enter letters, numbers and standard punctuation only. HTML and other scripts/tags will be rejected.