R31802 and negative completions

We have a process where we need to 'break down' an assembly and return the component parts to stock.

We create a work order for a negative qty and attach the standard BOM as a parts list, 'issue' the materials (negative) and then complete the work order (negative), and run manufacturing accounting.

The cardex records the IM and IC transactions correctly all referencing the same GL batch, but the batch only contains the IM transactions. The IC transactions do not appear in the batch and so are not updated to GL. The batch balances fine with just the IM transactions and so posts without apparent problems, leaving integrity issues.

Anybody seen this before and if so any solutions or work arounds?

Thanks,

VASUK

Xe Update 4

Hi,

If I understand your Business Process right, you need to dismantle an Assembly which is rejected from a WO and recover the parts built in that assembly. The following suggestion will work, when my understanding goes right.

a. Reject the item (Assembly) against the relevant WO
b. Make an IA to bring the parts back into inventory.
c. You may include another reason code (UDC), when you make the IA. This will enable you to trace as to how many parts are brought into inventory through this mode, at any given point of time.

Of course, you may not use negative completion at all, when the above works for you.

Cheers,
Sathish Kumar B

We considered using inventory transactions for this but prefer the work order process really, as we can re-use the BOM from the original assembly process.

The core problem is that when we do a negative completion, the IC transaction does not get added to the batch created.

Any further ideas appreciated.

VASUK

Take a step back here a second - my tests over the years strongly suggest that you SHOULD get a reversing IC transaction in the Batch. If you don't then maybe you have a bug which you need to research through with PeopleSoft.

Until such time as you find the explanation then I agree with you that a WO is the best place to handle such salvage operations. I advise that, if the IM transactions work then you don't bother with IC's at all. Put your Parent Item onto the WO Parts List. Exclude this WO Type from the MRP. Issue the Parent Item to the WO with an Issue then reverse Issue the other items on the WO Parts List BACK into stock.

This should maintain integrities for you whilst some Labour variances may drop out in Standard Cost Accounting.

Thanks Mark, It is reassurring to know that negative completions SHOULD work. This gives me hope!

Interesting idea about making the finished product one of the materials with a positive qty and the components also materials but with a negative qty, but I think we will aim to get our completions running properly before we try that!

I have run this with debug on debug and can see the insert statements to the F0911. For a positive completion qty I see it insert the IC tansaction then the IM's, but with a negative completion qty it just does the IM's.
Curious!

VASUK

Greetings vasuk,

Perhaps I'm not fully understanding the situation, but I take it there is some reason why you cannot simply reverse against the original WO. Has it already been passed through the Mfg. Acct'g steps and is therefore untouchable?
When we have similar situations, we just perform "negative Completions" against the WO that was used to produce the rejected assembly. By entering a negative quantity in the Completion program, it automatically does a reverse (negative) IC and produces "positive" IM's for the Components. Of course, the inspections / rejections are done long before the Mfg. Acct'g runs.
And, as Mark mentioned, the negative IC's do show up in the Batch.

Yes just that situation I am afraid. Manufacturing accounting is long past.

These 'assemblies' are actually stocked kits, and may eventually be broken down, as they are overstocked, and the components used again in a different kit (assembly). So they are not 'rejected' due to quality issues immediately after 'assembly'.

The idea is to raise a new WO for negative qty, attach the same bom as a parts list (maybe we have to scrap some of the 'components'), issue the materials and complete the work order.

My testing has gone as far as creating a work order for -1, not attaching a parts list, simply completing the wo for -1. The cardex entry is written correctly. When we run manufacturing accounting we get a batch number, and this is updated to the cardex record, but the batch is empty.
If we do it with a parts list we get just the IM's in the batch not the IC's.

Am I doing something stupid here?

VASUK

Hello,

Did you try to complete the item with a positive quantity? Was the IC booking created when completing positive queantities?

Yes, tried it repeatedly! It always works fine with positive qty and never with negative!

Thanks for all the feedback...kepp it up!

VASUK

If you using standard costing negative completions do work, However if you
are using Actual costing they willl NOT work

Re: RE: R31802 and negative completions

Colin, we are using average cost for the product and components. Does this mean it will not work then?

Do you have an explanation as to why not or is this based on experience?

Is there a logical reason why this should not work or is it a 'feature'?

Any advice appreciated,

VASUK

RE: RE: R31802 and negative completions

Yes it will NOT work with average cost.
All the documentation on average costs state that inventory going negative is
not supported and will produce unpredictable results.
However have recently discovered that this limitation extends to a negative
completion qty even if the overall stock balance was to remain positive.
PeopleSoft suggested a journal as a workaround. This is not really acceptable
as it will create integrity issues between your G/L and cardex.
We have logged an enhancement SAR requesting that the cost for the negative
completion be based on the previous positive cardex value.
I would not hold my breath waiting!!!!!!!!

Re: RE: RE: R31802 and negative completions

Oh well, at least I know where we stand!

Can you let me have the SAR number and we will join your campaign!

Also any details about where in the code this ruling is enforced would be appreciated. We may consider doing a change ourselves as we are also a little short of breath!

Many thanks,

VASUK

RE: RE: R31802 and negative completions

VASUK,



PeopleSoft have created enhancement SAR 7434021 /ICE Report ID 1180844000
requesting this functionality to take the original IC cost from the cardex
for a 02 costed parent item work order when reversing it.



You might add your weight to this in an attempt to get some action on the
issue.



Rgds

Colin

Re: RE: RE: R31802 and negative completions

We are added to your SAR with the comment that negative completions with actual cost are 'not supported'.

We found by testing and debug, that the problem is that during completion, Current Unaccounted Units (CCUU) and Current Unaccounted Amount (CCUA) in F3102 are not updated with the negative qty and amount, but left at zero. Following this through the code we found (eventually!) that this fails then to set the flag to process completions.

We just tested using SQL to update CCUU and CCUA in F3102 after completion and running R31802 over the data.

It worked fine giving exact reverse postings to a positive qty.

However it does expose us to negative average costs.

Example;

2 off assembly (A) in stock with AVCO of $10, as it was originally made of two components (B) and (C), originally with an avco of $5 each.

However the AVCO of (B) has changed since the original work order and is now $20.

So if we process a work order for -1 unit, with components at $20 + $5, total cost $25, we return (B) and (C) to stock at $20 and $5 respectively and reduce stock of assembly (A) by 1 unit at $25.

Total stock of (A) is now 1, with an avco of -$15 ($10 - $25).

Hence the dreaded negative average cost even though the stock did not go negative. I conclude this is why the problem has not been fixed, and is not likely to be.

Please let me know if you think I missed something.

VASUK