Variance posting when integrating PO with SFC

[62chev]

I cannot follow the logic Macola is using when posting variances to shop orders (in SFC) when a PO is tied to a non inventory item on the shop order. (sorry, using logic and Macola in the same sentence was truly accidental!)

For example. I enter a PO to a material (or outside processing) non inventory item for $3.00. I then receive the PO for $3.10. The shop order now reflects $3.10.

Now, if I enter a AP voucher for $3.15, instead of adding the additional 5 cents to the shop order the system adds an additional $.15 cents (the difference between the PO amount and the AP voucher). This results in a cost of $3.25 on the shop order.

Has anyone experienced this?

We are running Macola 7.6.300 with standard costing.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks!

Jim

 

[MacolaHelp]

Sounds like a bug? Macola has always handled std cost a little differently than avg or last. Perhaps they haven't fully tested the scenario you describe where the cost is updated on the shop order thorugh 2 different processes, the receipt in PO & the voucher in AP. Explain what you are seeing to the support dept or your reseller & ask to have it written up for correction.

 

[62chev]

Thanks, I have tried to get some resolution on this through my reseller. Not having much luck. Apparently Macola's focus is on ES and isn't real concerned about the 'little people' still running Macola.

I need a little encouragement - is there anyone out there that really likes Macola and thinks it is a great product etc etc? Or is everyone in the same boat where they are putting up with it until they can switch to a real software product?

I'm not trying to be negative on this product, heck I have spent several thousand dollars in the last few months adding modules, changing resellers, getting on a support contract etc. to try and make this software work. We are a small business that isn't very complicated and every time we turn around we hit a brick wall with this software.

I'm hearing that ES will be the answer, sometimes I wonder.... Anyone else share similar concerns?

Appreciate any feedback pro or con....

Thanks!

 

[crystalreporting]

I'm still of the opinion that Macola Progression is extremely good 'bang for the bucks' when compared with other similar ERP products. In lots of ways, I wish Exact had applied the ES changes to ALL of the modules i.e. the biggest area of ES that concerns me is the 'integration' of Globes financials. I've seen many other ERP packages falter and fail because there was a major re-write or integration that failed. The true value in any ERP product is it's historical changes i.e. improvements and refinements that have come gradually over time - I wont say ES is doomed to fail, but it's a gutsy move to try and integrate two packages together. I hope Exact can pull it off, but only time will tell. I can tell you that we've had a number of customers move away from Progression over the years (due to corporate buyouts etc.) and very few of the replacement ERP systems have provided as much functionality and flexibility.

Peter Shirley

http://www.linkcorp.com

 

[NEmacGuy]

I don't think Exact is only focus on ES. Far from it. They are receiving maintance from something like 6000 Macola accounts and 200 ES accounts. I think they realized this and now you are seeing 7.6.300..400.

 

[62chev]

They may not have lost focus on Macola, maybe their support of the product has always been dismal. I have never worked with a software product when an actual replicatable bug is not given some type of priority by the software company.

The ability to get a reasonable response as to if something will be fixed and/or when seems to require an act of God!

I hope Macola will convince me that they still have a committment to their legacy product, but I won't hold my breath!

Thanks for the feedback.