Different Item Tracking per Location?

Miklos_HollenderMiklos_Hollender Posts: 1,568Member
edited 2019-04-18 in NAV Three Tier
I know no such thing in the standard, but what do you think, easy enough to customize or messy? What I am trying to do is to see how much of a lot is left in the original purchase Location after Transfers to other Locations, but then not track it further. Maybe I should approach it a different way - if it is just one Location, maybe virtual Bins for lots would also work.

Imagine a huge purchase location, a distribution center, transfering stuff to other locations. You want to know how much is actually left of of a given receipt, a given "batch", not just estimate it by FIFO. But the other locations are small and sell things quickly, so they don't need this. So what do you think. Customize Item Tracking? Use virtual Bins? NAV2015.

EDIT: this sounds decent and easy: https://forum.mibuso.com/discussion/20680/item-tracking-by-location and apparently similar situation.


  • Miklos_HollenderMiklos_Hollender Posts: 1,568Member
    Hm, I am not sure anymore. Business case: when goods are customs cleared, we want to be able to know exactly from which purchase they are from. Customs clearing is a Transfer Order from a T1 to a T2 Location. Could assign a Lot No. to every purchase, and costing would be right, I think, but have to do this change as above and I am not sure if in the standard system you can even check how much is left of a Lot.

    Or we could do it by Bin. I could customize the Purchase Receipt to create bins and put goods into them. But when I select a Bin on a Transfer Order, the costing is not right. I.e. it does not automatically fill out the Applies-to Item Ledger Entry No. nor does it influence the Application logic in the background like that. Strangely the Application and Warehouse are not linked: just because you pick from a certain bin, it does not ensure that the cost will not be done by FIFO but from the specific Purchase Receipt that was stored in that Bin.

    Which direction seems easier?
  • KTA8KTA8 Posts: 236Member
    The main business logic about item tracking is quality; if you don't want that maybe you shouldn't use it in any way. You can also have a custom field like you said even the name batch number that identifies each entry.
  • Miklos_HollenderMiklos_Hollender Posts: 1,568Member
    edited 2019-04-25
    But Item Tracking at least influences cost application. Since cost application is complex and it is better to not customize it to pieces, the other two standard ways to influence it are Reservations and the Applies-To Item Ledger Entry No. fields.

    Let's take a pessimistic case, PO1 is booked in as 5000 pieces, PO2 as 4000, 4000, 2000 pieces in three entries. FIFO would take PO1, but I want to take PO2 because PO1 has some water damage or something, and want to take 5000 pieces of it, to move with a TO into the customs-cleared location. Entering the line as 5000 quantity and select the Lot No. would get the costing right. Entering the line as 5000 quantity, and Reservation, if carefully done manually, would take the costing right. Entering two lines, 4000 and 1000, using Applies-to Item Ledger Entries fields would get the costing right. Bins or custom fields would not.

    I could imagine a function where the user enters Item No., Quantity and selects PO2 on the Transfer Line, and then a code would run that would either Reserve it from the Item Ledger Entries made from that PO2, or maybe break the line to two lines and fill the Applies-To Item Ledger Entry No. fields, or would add the Lot No.

    Just not sure in which direction to think...
  • Miklos_HollenderMiklos_Hollender Posts: 1,568Member
    I decided to go with lot tracking, because it is easier to do the per-location customization than to add and book and cost-apply a custom field on purchases, sales, transfers and item journals, and if multiple batches are used on the same line because something I did not foresee then I would end up basically reinventing half of item tracking.
Sign In or Register to comment.