Charlie, I figured out that the problem is not based on whether or not there are any in stock. It turns out that it has to do with the qty of the raw mtl used in the Bill of Materials. If the qty is less than .01, then the rollup process takes it down to zero. Keep in mind that the Sheets of mtl are $523 a piece to we are looking at up to $5.21 per piece is being wiped out.
Hopefully this will be an easier puzzle to solve, any ideas?
I’m curious if the base IUM is the driving factor in this “Round Down to zero”.
For example, if that part’s UM was in area and the UM’s for Area were:
SF for square foot, with the following conversions
SH48 (for 4’ x 8’ Sheet) = 48 SF
144 SI (for sq in) = 1 SF
If the part needed 0.001 of a 4x8 Sheet, that BOM could be any of the following:
0.001 SH48
0.032 SF
3.904 SI
Curious if the 3.904 SI would first be converted to 0.001 SH48 x $529/SH48, which would still have the problem.
Or if it would be 3.904 SI x $529/SH48 x (1 SH48 / 4608 SI)
Here are the details of one of the parts in question, and all of the others follow the same rules.
Part1 dimensions are .15in X .15in and the sheet of raw material is 360 square inches, however both are UOM of EA. Part1 actually needs .0000625 of the raw material resulting in a Mtl cost of .03.
So, with both being in ea it should not be too complicated. Thoughts?
I’d say that be E10’s logic, .0000625 = 0. (because it is smaller that the smallest positive, non-zero decimal value)
Be interesting to make a UOM of “milliSheet” which is 1/1000th of a 360 sq. in sheet. A mSH = 0.360 EA.
So you would need 16 mSH to make one 0.15" x 0.15" piece.
EDIT:
My math is wrong 1 mSH = 0.001 EA, so you 1 mSH would be .360 in^2. And a .15 x .15 piece is 0.0225 in^2, resulting in qty Rqr’d of 0.0625 mSH per .15"x.15" piece.
Doesn’t quite make it above zero, but much less rounding
I just saw you were talking, new UOM. I had tried changing the existing UOM to 4 decimals. If I create a new UOM, how do I change it at the part maintenance level because that field is not changeable right?
DO NOT EXPERIMENT WITH UOMS IN YOUR LIVE DB!! Once a UOM is used, it’s nearly impossible to remove or undo.
The idea I had with a new UOM wasnt about that UOMs decimal setting, but rather making a UOM such that the QtyPer in the BOM wouldnt be so small that it rounds down.
There are a number of articles on UOM conversion and you should go through them. As Calvin said, do it on your test database first to see what the ramifications and problems are.
The other thing I would do is if you have changed the number of decimals on the UOM, check the stock status report to review the part costs. If you continue to have an issue, let me know and I can stop by. I’m in Fort Worth.
