Skip to content
+1-888-319-3663

COMMUNITY FORUM

Negative Adjustment of lot tracked inventory with landed costs being used

Matt asked 3 years ago
When using landed costs in a lot tracked environment with decimal quantities, if it can’t equally distribute costs, it has to split the lot into two separate “receivings” and two separate costs (generally a lot QTY of 1 and then the remainder on another) as seen in IV00300. This provides a big challenge if trying to do a SC Map of a negative adjustment. Is there a way to get around having to split up the lots on the source?
Patrick Roth Staff replied 3 years ago

Matt,

Well that WOULD be the easiest approach.

The hurdle that you are facing here on the Lot Line is that you probably then just have the 1 line in the source data.

Say QTY 201 LOT1000 for example and then costs and such.
Now when SC processes the data, it passes this 1 line through the LOT node and then you get the 201 and I assume the results you mention.

But you might say “if only this would be 200 of LOT1000 at X and then another line of QTY = 1 of LOT1000 at Y”

We’re in trouble because the data isn’t that and the nodes gets passed thru just the once.

But you can get around that by using Node Maintenance and adding in the same node again (then move it so they are together).

Now the data is STILL processed each line per node. But since I have the same node twice, I can process it twice.

But now your issue would be:
1. i’d have to write some logic (calculation) to detect that I need to take the 201 and process LOT node 1 for 200 and then set cost to X

2. then logic (calculation) on the 2nd node to then see that I need to take 201 and know that the previous calc did the 200 and now I just need to do 1 at cost Y on LOT node 2.

3. and of course logic in both so that if I don’t need to split the lots up so that in Lot Node 1 I do not

4. and then in Lot Node 2 I have a Restriction set to not do anything for this since was handled fully in Lot Node 1.

Sounds interesting but a fair amount of work. That’s why I said “easier to do in the source data”.

Matt Stoffel replied 3 years ago

I figured so, but thought maybe I was missing something. Thanks for the response.


If you would like to submit an answer or comment, please sign in to the eOne portal.