See scenario:
Set up the Inventory Setup:
- Automatic Cost Posting = TRUE
- Expected Cost Posting to G/L = TRUE
- Average Cost Calc. Type = Item & Location & Variant.
Use Item = 1001
- Costing Method = Standard
- Standard Cost = 100
- Replenishment System = Prod. Order
Create new Stockkeeping Units:
- Variant Code, Location Code
- Standard Cost = 10.
- Replenishment System = Prod. Order
Create new Prod. Order for this – Item, Variant Code, Location Code.
Use Output Journal to produce the Item (Inventory Account (Interim) = 10).
Run Change status (Finished) Prod. Order and then run Adjust Cost - Item Entries. After that:
- Inventory Account (Interim) = 0
- Inventory Account = 100
Why is there use the Standard Cost from Item and not from Stockkeeping Units (for this specific - Variant Code)?
If exist Stockkeeping Units for particular Item we suggest to use Standard Cost from Stockkeeping Units in all cases (for specific - Variant Code, etc.).
Comments
Also require a roll up standard cost on SKU, only works on main item currently, big chunk of functionality missing, any idea when this may be implemented
Category: Inventory
I am really curious what the design engineer at Microsoft was thinking when they decided on this whole logic that only uses item’s cost and not the SKUs??? Why would they assume that companies would create variants of the item and somehow magically their costs will all be the same as the item’s cost???
Category: Inventory
This should absolutely be a feature of Business Central, as it is in Finance and Supply Chain. It is a bit frustrating to think that a customer will use stockkeeping units exactly as intended and there is no way to possibly run an independent cost roll for the variant, or produce the variant at it's own standard cost that does match the item. This also applies to other cost environments besides standard. For example, in a FIFO environment the variant should be creating it's own item ledger entries and having it's own cost capitalized and expensed out correctly, rather than blending item ledger entries and cost for all variants of an item.
Category: Inventory
Rourings and BOMs can be defined on SKU Level, wich causes different cost. All costing functionalitys are needed on SKU level...Thanks!
Category: Inventory
Standard costing must be possible on SKU level, because we can do BOM's and Routings on SKU-level.this is a no-brainer
Category: Inventory
Wouldn't it be consistent to extend the stock keeping unit also by the single-level costs as they are implemented in the item table? Then the statistics on the production order and the cost accounting for articles with variant SKU and different BOMs and routings could be calculated correctly.
Category: Inventory
It seems obvious that by having BOMs and routes by SKU, we must also have a standard cost by SKU
Category: Inventory
The ability to manage Standard Cost at the Stockkeeping Unit Card being limited to Purchase Items is a significant challenge. Without having the BOM and Routing at the SKU Level, a company is required to setup a separate BOM Item record for each Item/Location/Variant combination. These separately maintained Items for each combination is cumbersome at best. This request is made by multiple customers at NAVUG Summit and Directions Conference every year. There is also extensive case history on this. We need to give significant attention to this adding this functionality.
Category: Inventory
I would also add an option for the ''Roll-up standard Cost'' to modify the SKU cards and not only the Item card.
Standard cost per location does not seem to be supported by the system, so either take the unit cost from the Item card for the expected cost (as compared te SKU card right now), or extend the BC functionality to handle std costing per location.
Thanks
Category: Inventory
Business Central Team (administrator)