NAV 2013 Warehouse management datapercompany No

Thierry_Gofflot

Dear All,
We are facing a problem with a new project where the Customer has 3 companies, each company buys their own product but there is only one common warehouse; that means that warehouse receipts, put-aways, picks and shipments are done in one company for all 3. And of course each company can sell items bought by another one and at the end of the month, they do some intercompany transactions.
I have explained the standard intercompany functionnality but the Customer does not want this solution.
Any idea, suggestion ?

Waiting for prompt reply

kind regards

davmac1

You could look at running one NAV company with the actual company being the first global dimension. You will need to control the entries by how you set up the first global dimension and you can then do your "intercompany" entries between the company dimension.
Your other option is to keep separate company tables and use code to handle transferring transactions and records between companies using the CHANGECOMPANY commands. This is tricky as well since CHANGECOMPANY will not handle validations to other tables and you cannot post in a different company. You could use NAS to handle posting.
Probably less work if you can run within the same NAV company and handle the global dimension 1 balancing.

Marije_Brummel

Tell the customer to buy another software package.

tinoruijs

Mark Brummel wrote:

Tell the customer to buy another software package.

I recently heard a salesperson say AX can take care of everything. Specially intercompany-transactions.

Marije_Brummel

NAV can take care of everything too. Just depends on either the budget or the customer willing to follow procedures.

tinoruijs

Mark Brummel wrote:

NAV can take care of everything too. Just depends on either the budget or the customer willing to follow procedures.

I know. :-)

I forgot to put a smiley after I recently heard a salesperson say AX can take care of everything.

Miklos_Hollender

Hi Thierry

You have basically two options.

One is one company and then use global dimensions / resp centers / whatever, but in this case it impossible to predict how many customizations will be needed to have everything working normally. I.e. customize the purchase order report to print out the company name depending on the dimension/resp center and so on. And accounting will be a mess.

Your other option is to go strict. Three companies legally, three companies in Navision. Then basically all you need to assess is how to make warehouse work easier. Perhaps all you need is just one inventory per bin report using CHANGECOMPANY. Perhaps you need to make a way to make shipments and receipts easier. But in this case the scope of customizations is more limited and more foreseeable.

I must tell you I dislike such clients and tend to push for rejecting them. ERP is for enterprises. An enterprise is a larger and very official thing that does everything by the books and has regular internal processes. An entrepreneur juggling three different company names when everything is in one place is simply not an enterprise, it is not "official" enough, it is not something "by the books". Basically this guy looks "too smart" in a not positive way to be a real enterprise and hence use ERP.

rmv_RU

Thierry Gofflot wrote:

Dear All,
I have explained the standard intercompany functionnality but the Customer does not want this solution.

Can you explain reasons why the Customer doesn't want this solution?

Rob_Hansen

On the topic of Global Dimension 1 to segregate company data... We implemented this approach for a NAV 2013 implementation last fall and it worked out very well. The customer does not use warehousing, but the changes were not as significant as you might worry they'd be. At a high level, it involved some of the steps below...but again, it worked out great and accounting has been perfectly clean...no issues.

- In the G/L post codeunit, add logic to require Global Dimension 1 Code on EVERY entry hitting the G/L
- Modify the consistency check in G/L post to enforce balancing by global dimension 1
- Enforce restrictions around documents (global dim. 1 the same on the header and all lines)
- As an exception to the previous point, we allowed purchase invoices/credit memos to be posted with lines allocated to other "entities" (global dim. 1) and added a setup table and logic to automatically post due-to/due-from entries
- Add some other restrictions (no cash applications across entities, exchange adjustment set up to work within entities, suggest vendor payments adjusted accordingly)

It does take some time, but it's not like you're talking hundreds of hours here. The big thing is that all companies must operate in the same home currency. Our customer knows that if they add a foreign currency based entity, they will need to use a separate company. With that limitation understood, this approach has worked out very, very well.

Rob_Hansen

Note that we also used Responsibility Centers to handle some of the document requirements (addresses on documents)...we did add a logo for the responsibility center to print on documents as well.

Rob_Hansen

Miklos Hollender wrote:

I must tell you I dislike such clients and tend to push for rejecting them. ERP is for enterprises. An enterprise is a larger and very official thing that does everything by the books and has regular internal processes. An entrepreneur juggling three different company names when everything is in one place is simply not an enterprise, it is not "official" enough, it is not something "by the books". Basically this guy looks "too smart" in a not positive way to be a real enterprise and hence use ERP.

I disagree with that statement. This can be a valid requirement, but it needs to be FULLY assessed and the customer needs to be fully informed on the considerations and impacts of running multiple entities in one NAV company. It's not fair to say that if they request this they are not a real enterprise. We implemented the "multiple entities in one company" approach for a billion dollar food distribution company back in 2003, enabling them to have full visibility into inventory across all their companies when checking inventory while processing sales orders and other transactions (without having to run a report every time), along with automated tools to reallocate/transfer inventory between entities easily. NAV would have never been selected if they needed to switch companies to see inventory and then process intercompany transactions to move it...they simply would not have been able to run their "real enterprise" under that model. Managing entities as Global Dimension 1 is a viable approach, but as I said, it's critical for EVERYONE to fully understand what it will do and what it means.

Rob_Hansen

This is not meant to be a rude comment, so don't take it the wrong way...

Miklos Hollender wrote:

An enterprise is a larger and very official thing that does everything by the books and has regular internal processes.

That statement made me laugh. It never ceases to amaze me how many large enterprises are completely lacking good processes and certainly don't do everything by the books...hence the calls for our help as they regularly mess things up and can't figure out how to get back on track! (Yes, we try to train them and advise them on processes that need to be in place...yet the train rolls on...)