Sage 100

Importing BOM's without options is Soooooooooooooo much easier in the new BF. Why can't Sage build on this simplicity? But then again, maybe I speak too soon.

I was just asked yesterday if I had done any BOM imports in the new framework. I haven't but said I HOPE they are easier! Good to know!!

Just imported new ones. Not sure about modifying them.....

You mean like converting Job Cost and Payroll to BF?

For the life of me, I don't understand the inaneness of that decision. Did they really decide that long ago to kill the golden goose? JUST put it in the new framework without any of the usual improvements (ok, a bit of sarcasm about the usual improvements).........

Or Work Order???

I wonder how many installs Sage has for BOM and WO?

BOM should be more widely used since the introduction of bundled apps. Clients didn't used to license it if their primary bills were actually kits, but when it is included, they use it. Work Order has never been a big seller, because: 1. Many resellers don't do manufacturing. 2. It generally is not a great function, unless you add enhancements. 3. Clients initially don't want to automate this and have other systems in place for tracking production. Actually the developers (such as ASC Group) have done a good job of introducing enhancements that make the module much more usable to the point where I believe there is more of a market. It certainly does not have the full functionality of JobOps, but it is a less expensive alternative with the enhancements. Sage does not look at the above with regard to whether to convert the module any more than it looks at JobOps seriously. That's why Sage 100 is in ""maintenance mode"".

@JohnHoyt you forgot to disclose how many JobOps clients you have :-). Does it really matter how many clients are using WO, PR, JC TC or MRP? If the ""client for life"" is the Sage mantra, then they would care about ALL client's regardless of their module sales.

@JeffSchwenk and @ThereseLogeais - importing modifications to BoM works very well, although if you don't have all the required validation fields correct, the VI job can freeze up on you. I tend to use validations from an existing file to keep it simple on VI BoM updates.

Yer funny @MoiraGoggin. I asked once and was told they had less than 100 customers using JC. I replied, ""Duh! It doesn't really work."".

Interesting @RobertWood - we have at least five of those JC customers and at least seven WO customers.

I'm not exactly buying it either. We had 3 at that time. Now I think I have 1.

Actually, I had 4. One sold to a larger company. Two both needed WIP reports that tied to the GL. Go figure! And they both got fed up and went to tracking Job Cost on spreadsheets and downgraded to Peachtree and Quickbooks.

I'm not sure which as more sales WO or JC - but recall in 4.50 they highlighted enahnced sales order integration with JC. So at least its consistent with Sage's policy @RobertWood to keep working on what doesn't work and not work on what needs work.

in an Insights session a few years back, the Sage team demoed the 5 most requested extended solutions for JC. They then asked what could be done to JC to help sell it better. Someone in the audience yelled to them they just showed the most requested features and they should be included but none of the Sage folks got what was being said.

We have been very successful selling and implementing Job Cost over the years. We use it extensively in the entertainment industry. A few years ago I mentioned this to one of the product managers in charge of Job Cost, and they were amazed, thinking it was only applicable to construction projects. It would be helpful if they either removed the construction references or made options for various industries, but we work around those. We now also use it in the agriculture industry to track grower payables and receivables for fields. It works great. I don't think Sage really understands the power of costing functions.