Hi Valentin cast,
To be honest, it doesn't pass my opinion hence I made a post here to try get more opinion.
Currently, they are using separate location. Their operation team is "struggling" to perform inventory transfer between locations on timely basis thus resulting in month end item journal where users again have done positive adjustment but incorrectly at 0 cost resulting in abnormal average cost.
To me, I know these are user mistakes and process but I have been repeating and staying firm to what would be best practice.
Unfortunately, the management hopes to find a light in more balanced solution that can reduce item journal adjustment, relief operation team's data entry on adjustment but at the same time still obtain financial inventory value by "location" (without usage of actual location but dimension).
Hi Jun Wang,
Thanks and I have thought deeper than that. Please see my analogy in below after reply to Tech and see whether this makes sense to you too.
Hi Tech BC Gokul,
Thanks for your input. Besides global dimension, I know of many methods to build a report base from value entry table using dimension but that is not my point. My point is as per below.
>>Analogy<<
1. If item has a default dimension (eg, item attribute, category dimension, product group) and it is a one-to-one relationship, I have no problem with analyzing using dimension but the question is about the logical process flow and whether that makes sense in this context.
2. If location dimension is to be introduced, then one item will have many-to-one relationship in value entry table. I give an example below
<location dimension A> <item A> <+5 qty> <purchase> <location generic>
<location dimension B> <item A> <+3 qty> <purchase> <location generic>
so combined qty in location generic for item A is now +8 qty
if the physical flow is -5 qty from <location dimension B> and user creates a Sales Order or Transfer Order
system does not block (which ease the operation) and user can conveniently reduce qty from 8 to remaining 3.
question is you resulted in below entry
<location dimension B> <item A> <+5 qty> <sales/transfer> <location generic>
when you run ACIE batch job, how will inventory value the average costing properly by "location" in this context?
you probably end up in a -2 qty for <location dimension B> with a negative cost?