Question

manufactured Part set to 0 cost

  • 8 July 2021
  • 9 replies
  • 297 views
K
Rank
Userlevel 1
Badge +2

I have a customer that would like to have the cost of a manufactured part set to 0 in the standard cost, even though it has components in the structure. It is a part that is usually generated as a by-product but they still would like it to be set as manufactured. it has the setting Only Zero Cost allowed on the Inventory part so the inventory value is always 0, but the standard cost that they use for pre-calculation is incorrectly set to the calculated value. 

Any tips and ides is welcome!

 

This topic has been closed for comments

9 replies

Thushitha Chandrasiri
Rank
Userlevel 7
Badge +20

Hi @KristinaB ,

You can set the Stop Cost Roll to “Stop Cost Roll Up” in the Part Cost Details in the cost you are going to calculate the cost for the part, and set it when calculating the cost also. Then, it will be calculated as zero. And then you can copy that zero cost to the cost set 1.

 

Thanks,

Thushitha Chandrasiri - Follow my LinkedIn profile and contact me via - https://www.linkedin.com/in/thushitha-a-chandrasiri-32a2b2134/
V
Rank
Userlevel 1
Badge +3

Hi ThushAsanka,

 

Thanks a lot for the hint.

We tried this but it seems that the setting in Part Cost Details has no effect - only when I select the option at the start of the calculation I can see a result of it.

And no matter where I select this option the respective part will be included with full standard costs in everyhigher level with the next calculation run.

 

Thanks and best regards,

Volker

Thushitha Chandrasiri
Rank
Userlevel 7
Badge +20

Hi ThushAsanka,

 

Thanks a lot for the hint.

We tried this but it seems that the setting in Part Cost Details has no effect - only when I select the option at the start of the calculation I can see a result of it.

And no matter where I select this option the respective part will be included with full standard costs in everyhigher level with the next calculation run.

 

Thanks and best regards,

Volker

Hi @Volker Wilmes ,

Yes, if that part is used another top level structures, when cost calculation is done for those top parts, the cost will be calculated and updated.

To prevent that there’s an option which can be used. You can run the cost calculation for those top parts with an effective date which is not a valid date for any structure revisions of that zero cost manufactured part. But, you have to untick the “Use Latest revision” check box for that zero cost manufactured part before the calculation. Then, I think the calculation of the top parts should ignore the cost calculation of the zero cost part.

 

Thanks,

 

Thushitha Chandrasiri - Follow my LinkedIn profile and contact me via - https://www.linkedin.com/in/thushitha-a-chandrasiri-32a2b2134/
V
Rank
Userlevel 1
Badge +3

Hi @ThushAsanka 

I am not sure if I get this correctly.

Let’s assume we have a part A with a nice structure of raw materials below. We want to keep them there but ignore A’s value in all parts where it is a component itself. A’s revision date with this structure is somewhen in April.

Then we have part B where A is a component. B additionally has all raw materials of A in its structure. Where do I have to set “Stop Cost Rollup” (probably when calculating A?), and which dates should be applied?

Thanks again,

Volker

Thushitha Chandrasiri
Rank
Userlevel 7
Badge +20

Hi @Volker Wilmes ,

Let’s say we are running the cost calculation with effective date set as 30th July when running the calculation. And the phase out date of the structure of part B is empty and you can keep it like that so it’s phase out date is unlimited, so 30th July is a valid date for Part B’s structure. But, you can temporarily set the phase out date of the part A’s structure to a date less than 30th July (let’s say 25th July), so with respect to the effective date of the cost calculation, part A’s structure is not valid, so its total cost will not be considered in the cost calculation of part B.

Use Latest Structure Revision / Use Latest Routing Revision check boxes should be cleared in the relevant cost set of the part A.

I believe this should work.

 

Thanks,

Thushitha Chandrasiri - Follow my LinkedIn profile and contact me via - https://www.linkedin.com/in/thushitha-a-chandrasiri-32a2b2134/
V
Rank
Userlevel 1
Badge +3

Hi @ThushAsanka 

Good idea, but this provokes an error message: “Phase out date conflicts with existing structure parent parts”

Thanks,

Volker

Thushitha Chandrasiri
Rank
Userlevel 7
Badge +20

Hi @Volker Wilmes ,

sorry I didn’t think of that error. seems that solution doesn’t work. I would have thought that part A is in part B’s structure and phase-in and out dates should correspond.

 

Thanks,

Thushitha Chandrasiri - Follow my LinkedIn profile and contact me via - https://www.linkedin.com/in/thushitha-a-chandrasiri-32a2b2134/
Thushitha Chandrasiri
Rank
Userlevel 7
Badge +20

Hi @Volker Wilmes ,

When the part A has been defined as “Not Consumed”  in the Part B’s structure, part A’s cost coming zero in the part B’s cost build up, but again cost of part A is calculated for its own part cost figures. If that’s okay, you can use that.

Otherwise, I think it’s better to define a new cost set something called “Zero Parts Cost Set” which is defined for only the zero cost manufactured parts. You can set up cost elements / cost buckets such that they will not fetch cost data (you can create a new cost template without adding any cost buckets/elements to it and attach it to the new cost set), so the calculation always be zero, and then an copy that cost to cost set 01.

 

Thanks,

Thushitha Chandrasiri - Follow my LinkedIn profile and contact me via - https://www.linkedin.com/in/thushitha-a-chandrasiri-32a2b2134/
V
Rank
Userlevel 1
Badge +3

Hi @ThushAsanka 

Thanks again for the hints! “Not consumed” unfortunately is not possible because of required lot batch tracking, and unfortunately we need the whole structure of A everywhere because of an interface to a dangerous goods management system. 

It seems we can’t square the circle here…

Thanks and regards,

Volker

Terms & ConditionsCookie settings