We’re running on Visual 7.0, actual cost, FIFO by part location. We changed from FIFO by part to FIFO by part location with our Infor Channel Partner over a year ago.
Since that time, we’ve had some unexplained $0 cost layers with some of our parts. When we find them, we verify that part maintenance has a cost, and that the end-user didn’t blank out the cost field on an adjust in to inventory. Upon further research with Infor’s technical support, Infor believes some of these cost layers are related to driving locations negative with auto-issue, and then doing issue/returns of work orders to put the quantity on the location back to zero. Since the adjust out drove the location negative, there is no cost with that transaction. The issue/return makes the quantity in the location 0, but there is no cost with this transaction either, as there is no transactions in the location to use as a cost basis.
Sound confusing? (You may need to re-read that last paragraph more than once!!)
Infor recommends backdating an adjust in to the location, before the date of the first transaction that drove the location negative, and then an adjust out of the location after the issue/return date. The adjust in and adjust out quantity have to be larger than the initial transaction that drove the location negative, but must match each other to keep our inventory count the same.
Is this how you have handled similar situations? If not, how would you fix them?
Peter Boers is our special guest author at visualnuggets.com and is an active participant in the VISUAL community. Peter has recently taken on the responsibility for maintaining the web site for the newly formed Visual Enterprise Global User Group (VEGUG).
Connect with him online at LinkedIn