Costing is always a tricky subject, but I think an option for a company to allow buy to job items to be included in the average costing would be a worthwhile addition. I know that it will take some thinking to figure out how to calculate it, considering the current model is relying on inventory quantity in the calculation. But I think that it’s something that a lot of companies would want. My idea is that there should be a setting in company or site configuration that says “include buy to job in average costing”, which would default for things to be included. Then at the PO level, there should be another option to exclude specific items at the line level from average costing. That way, it’s more of an exception rather than the rule. I’m guess that most companies would prefer it to work this way.
I agree this would be worthwhile. I would introduce a new field instead of using the inventory value fields though. You’d never balance your inventory if you changed the costs without changing the quantity. So a Average Site Purchase Cost and an Average Site Make Cost screen with the details of how those costs were calculated. You may want to exclude some purchase orders or jobs from the calculation if you had rework or engineering jobs or small lot buys.
Mark W.
Maybe the solution just adds a pass through inventory. Instead of received directly to the job, it receives it to inventory, and then issues it the job, all in one transaction.
That would be the reason for the check box on the PO to not include in average calculations.
But then users who want to capture actual costs (like defense contractors with Cost-Plus accounting systems) will get an average cost they’ll have to explain to the Auditors.
That’s why I said “option” is site or company config. It has to be a business decision.
And jobs. I like that.
Agreed, but they might want to know their average prices too and not be punished for their accounting system.
It’s got to be a real b!itch working at Epicor making these kinds of decisions and trying to make all users happy!
honestly, if everything in real life happened in the order it was supposed to, this probably wouldn’t be an issue (can you say shipped jobs before parts are received or operations are completed or materials are issued!!). But the reality is, real life is messy, people are lazy, and managers don’t always understand when you tell them how it should be. For us a cost is better than no cost, which is why we bring everything into inventory, because quite often the job gets shipped before the receipts are done and then costing is all jacked up, and I can go negative temporarily and at least be close. I get told we don’t have the man power to do it the right way, then later get an earful when the system says something wonky. I told you so doesn’t usually work to win an argument 
For other business with tighter controls on costs and processes, the way it is now probably works fine. For our business, and I would guess many others, is isn’t that cut an dry.
I would want to make sure the functionality works if you are FIFO costed as well…