Steve Wells
Member
This is a copy of a question I sent to JDE. I'm interested in reading any comments that anyone may have on the issue.
####################
I would like to re-visit the unit of measure issue raised in Call 5273415. I need some additional clarification on the issue.
The question I need answered explicitly is whether JDE can support using pricing and purchasing UOMs that are smaller than the primary UOM.
Here is a sample item that illustrates the situation:
The sample item comes packaged in a case that contains two, 2.5 gallon bottles. The smallest UOM in which we will physically buy or sell the product is the 2.5 gallon bottle. Therefore, we would like to make Bottle the primary UOM so we can maintain our inventory in bottles, and default Bottle (the primary UOM) as the transaction UOM on sales orders and purchase orders. (One additional note: On occasion, we take returns of a partial bottle, but we have all quantities set to 4 decimals, so we should be able to handle the return OK.)
The norm in our industry is to cost and price this type of item by the gallon, regardless of the physical container in which the product is packaged. As a result, we would like to make Gallon both the pricing and purchasing UOM for the item. Unfortunately, this approach violates the general directive from JD Edwards that the primary unit of measure must be the smallest unit of measure for the item.
It is important to us to be able to use this approach, but we cannot do so if it will cause problems with processing in JD Edwards.
So, to recap, here is our desired setup for the item:
Item: Sam’s Simple Solvent
Packaging: Comes in a case of two, 2.5 gallon bottles.
Item UOM Conversion:
1 case = 2 bottles
1 bottle = 2.5 gallons
Primary UOM: Bottle
Pricing UOM: Gallon
Purchasing UOM: Gallon
Can JD Edwards support this approach? Please use one of the three following statements as the basis of your answer.
1. JD Edwards can support this approach with no problems in any area of the system.
2. JD Edwards can largely support this approach, but potential problems can occur in the following areas:
3. JD Edwards cannot support this approach at all.
Sincerely,
Steve Wells
####################
I would like to re-visit the unit of measure issue raised in Call 5273415. I need some additional clarification on the issue.
The question I need answered explicitly is whether JDE can support using pricing and purchasing UOMs that are smaller than the primary UOM.
Here is a sample item that illustrates the situation:
The sample item comes packaged in a case that contains two, 2.5 gallon bottles. The smallest UOM in which we will physically buy or sell the product is the 2.5 gallon bottle. Therefore, we would like to make Bottle the primary UOM so we can maintain our inventory in bottles, and default Bottle (the primary UOM) as the transaction UOM on sales orders and purchase orders. (One additional note: On occasion, we take returns of a partial bottle, but we have all quantities set to 4 decimals, so we should be able to handle the return OK.)
The norm in our industry is to cost and price this type of item by the gallon, regardless of the physical container in which the product is packaged. As a result, we would like to make Gallon both the pricing and purchasing UOM for the item. Unfortunately, this approach violates the general directive from JD Edwards that the primary unit of measure must be the smallest unit of measure for the item.
It is important to us to be able to use this approach, but we cannot do so if it will cause problems with processing in JD Edwards.
So, to recap, here is our desired setup for the item:
Item: Sam’s Simple Solvent
Packaging: Comes in a case of two, 2.5 gallon bottles.
Item UOM Conversion:
1 case = 2 bottles
1 bottle = 2.5 gallons
Primary UOM: Bottle
Pricing UOM: Gallon
Purchasing UOM: Gallon
Can JD Edwards support this approach? Please use one of the three following statements as the basis of your answer.
1. JD Edwards can support this approach with no problems in any area of the system.
2. JD Edwards can largely support this approach, but potential problems can occur in the following areas:
3. JD Edwards cannot support this approach at all.
Sincerely,
Steve Wells