Could i please get a copy also.
Thanks In advance
Brian.
bmoyer@outtencars.com
Monthly and annual parts rec.
-
Louis
Monthly and annual parts rec.
This is a great forum! Where else could we get together and help each other like this. I would most appreicate a copy also.
Thanks!
laljensen@newulmtel.net
Thanks!
laljensen@newulmtel.net
-
mc6792
Monthly and annual parts rec.
Like everyone else, could you please forward a copy to mcummings@gallerygroup.com.
Thanks helpers1,
Mike C
Thanks helpers1,
Mike C
-
subyparts
Monthly and annual parts rec.
Hi...
I am new to this forum and just happened upon this posting. I would be grateful if you could also send me a copy of your proceedure.
Thank you!
I am new to this forum and just happened upon this posting. I would be grateful if you could also send me a copy of your proceedure.
Thank you!
-
ctvolvo
-
jimt01
Monthly and annual parts rec.
Holly looks like you might have gotten something started with parts managers that we actually like getting from a controller.. 
Yes I did get it and if you could answer one question. I believe that the MGR/MSR is the equal to 2213 in R&R? Thanks for the help
Jim
[This message has been edited by jimt01 (edited 05-02-2006).]
Yes I did get it and if you could answer one question. I believe that the MGR/MSR is the equal to 2213 in R&R? Thanks for the helpJim
[This message has been edited by jimt01 (edited 05-02-2006).]
[This message has been edited by jimt01 (edited 05-02-2006).]
-
AllanG
Monthly and annual parts rec.
I don't understand why anything needs to be done to reconcile parts inventory to the general ledger. Surely the DMS does that automatically? Parts Inventory and GL should always be 100% in sync. If it is out by 0.1% how can you belive anything that comes out of the DMS. The only thing that should cause a discrepency is theft of parts. Or am I missing something here?
-
Darrell Langford
-
scotstrong
Monthly and annual parts rec.
AllanG:
According to your profile you are not in the dealership parts business, so I can understand why this might not make sense to you. The DMS system on the parts side basically only accounts for parts that show an on-hand quantity. There are many potential "in-process" items that the DMS system's "on-hand value" may not account for. "Work-in-process" is parts that are sold to repair orders and parts invoices that have not closed out yet and posted to the accounting journals. The DMS system will create a report and total for these; yet it has to be manually added to the "on-hand value" to compare to the accounting office value. "Used cores" are returned parts that have a core charge that have not yet been returned for the core credit; again this must be manually added to the "on-hand value". "Returns in process" are returns made to the manufacturer (or other vendor/supplier) that the store has not yet received credit for. Also, if the accounting office has received and posted any invoice for parts that have not yet come in (in transit); or if parts have arrived that the accounting office has not yet received the invoice to post; one must account for all of these as plus and minus adjustments to the accounting dept. and DMS parts "on-hand value".
Any and all of these situations happen virtually every month in almost every dealership; so you can begin to see that the reconciliation process can sometimes be more than a little cumbersome and time-consuming. As stated in previous posts, if there is a problem it is usually identified and resolved in the month that it occurred rather than waiting for a once-a-year complete physical inventory to reconcile the parts dept. figure with the accounting office figure. When there is a discrepancy, it is more often the result of human error rather than theft. Many parts depts. handle thousands of individual transactions per month. All it takes is for a couple of instances of a busy counter person juggling multiple tasks and numerous interruptions to forget to bill something out that was given out resulting in a discrepancy.
I have yet to see any method other than a partially manual process of adding and subtracting the "in-process" items to the DMS-generated numbers that can come up with an accurate reconciliation.
Hope this helps clarify a somtimes very murky situation.
Scot Strong
According to your profile you are not in the dealership parts business, so I can understand why this might not make sense to you. The DMS system on the parts side basically only accounts for parts that show an on-hand quantity. There are many potential "in-process" items that the DMS system's "on-hand value" may not account for. "Work-in-process" is parts that are sold to repair orders and parts invoices that have not closed out yet and posted to the accounting journals. The DMS system will create a report and total for these; yet it has to be manually added to the "on-hand value" to compare to the accounting office value. "Used cores" are returned parts that have a core charge that have not yet been returned for the core credit; again this must be manually added to the "on-hand value". "Returns in process" are returns made to the manufacturer (or other vendor/supplier) that the store has not yet received credit for. Also, if the accounting office has received and posted any invoice for parts that have not yet come in (in transit); or if parts have arrived that the accounting office has not yet received the invoice to post; one must account for all of these as plus and minus adjustments to the accounting dept. and DMS parts "on-hand value".
Any and all of these situations happen virtually every month in almost every dealership; so you can begin to see that the reconciliation process can sometimes be more than a little cumbersome and time-consuming. As stated in previous posts, if there is a problem it is usually identified and resolved in the month that it occurred rather than waiting for a once-a-year complete physical inventory to reconcile the parts dept. figure with the accounting office figure. When there is a discrepancy, it is more often the result of human error rather than theft. Many parts depts. handle thousands of individual transactions per month. All it takes is for a couple of instances of a busy counter person juggling multiple tasks and numerous interruptions to forget to bill something out that was given out resulting in a discrepancy.
I have yet to see any method other than a partially manual process of adding and subtracting the "in-process" items to the DMS-generated numbers that can come up with an accurate reconciliation.
Hope this helps clarify a somtimes very murky situation.
Scot Strong