Creating Separate financial statements for two different plants w/in same company


(Penny Cook) #1

We have been on vantage since 2006 & upgraded to E10 in 2016. When we first implemented this system we had a company with two plants, and our Epicor consultant advised against setting up two different plants within that company code. Each plant had different processes so we were able to identify these using department codes to create separate financials for each plant and perform various analyses. Fast forward to 2018, and we are retooling the second plant and it will have the same process as plant one so department codes will now be the same. However, we still want the ability to run financials by each plant. Another detail is that we actually have 4 different production companies running out of E10 and use the same chart numbers and department codes across the entire corporation, and we want to maintain that consistency for our various processes.

I am looking for creative ways to be able to run financials by plant for this one company. I appreciate any suggestions.


(Monty Wilson) #2

Penny, I know you’ve thought of keeping the process codes unique from each other, even though in our minds we know they represent the same physical processes. What’s the downside to going that way? Also Epicor has a GL segment “flex” capability but if you didn’t take advantage of that when you implemented 10.0 you’d have to reimplement the G/L to change to that feature.


(Brad Boes) #3

Penny,

In a previous life I worked in a company that had a setup like you are describing.

In Epicor:

One company

One Plant

Three production warehouses

But in reality there were three facilities under one entity. They assigned a GL code to each warehouse as a Division. The GL control code only had the Division part of the account so the default account division segment was overwritten by the warehouse GL control. So instead of a default A-4000-000 sales account you get a B-4000-000 account assigned

GL Departments were tied out to Job Departments by facility.

There were separate product groups for each facility and those accounts had the division included to drive the WIP and COS accounts by division.

This allowed them to run as one big plant for methods, but have the division breakout for financials.

This avoided all the transfer order and multiple plant setup. They end up with different part methods for similar parts that are run in different facilities. One MRP run.

Not for everyone, but it works well for them.

FYI

Brad


(Penny Cook) #4

Monty, Thank you for your input. We have considered unique codes, and may ultimately to get what we want. We did not implement the “Flex” capability with the E10 upgrade, but I will take a closer look at that feature and see if this is the route we should take even if it means re-implementing the GL.

Penny


(Penny Cook) #5

Brad, Thanks for your idea. I think I need to explore this a bit more to see if we can make that change to our processes!

Penny