Sage 100

Is there a way to re-calulate the CI-ITEM value 'TotalQuantityOnHand'? We have a serialized item that shows 2 in stock but the total quantity on hand field shows -20.

How many warehouses? There is a program that replaces IMZBL1 but can't remember the name of it.

Is it IM_BALANCEQTYONHAND_UI ?

Yes

I tried IM_BALANCEQTYONHAND_UI and it doesn't seem to address this field. The field we have the issue with is in CI_Item (Field 87 in DFDM and 72 in file layouts). The user has it in her inventory lookup. MAS 200 4.40.0.7. 3 warehouses but only one has ever been active. I've found a number of serialized items with a negative value in this field. I can certainly correct in DFDM but hoped that one of the migration utilities might be able to correct it.

I ran across this a couple of months ago, and what I came away with from talking to Sage support about it was that you should ignore the totalquantityonhand field in 4.40 because whatever code is supposed to keep it in sync just plain does not work. I suppose you could script/schedule a VI process to keep it up to date if it is really important for the customer.

Plain as the nose on your face..............

Now that's technical support for you ... ""it just plain does not work"".

I have client with FIFO costing where the negative tier (-50) will not match up against a positive tier (100). The negative tier adjustment doesn't remedy the situation. The on hand total 50 is correct.

Phil, does Sage by chance view this as a bug that they plan to fix?

It did not sound that way to me - my incident was about a report I needed to create that day, so I just used other files to get the total. I don't think Sage even recorded the case, as I cannot find it now in my support case listings on sagesoftwareonline.com.

They do have a KB article written up on this: http://infosource.sagesoftwareonline.com/infasp/kdb.asp?isresolutionconceptid=528354

Wow, after reading that KB, one would think it should have been fixed by now. It also reads as if the period end processing just corrects the symptom, not the real issue.

And the KB article has no Engineering Status link.

Thanks for all the replies, especially Phil and Dawn. I went right by the KB article. PU1 for 4.5 doesn't appear to address it either. I asked the client and they are not sure how long this has been going on, so it may be the logic does normally work but the problem originated per the KB article when they upgraded to 4.4. I think I will get them synced using VI and see what happens.

Jeff - your issue has to do with the CostCommitted or some such field and I believe with 4.50 or 4.40.7 there is a new program you can run to fix those. I first reported those about a year ago - glad to see they finally agreed there was a problem and came up with a fix. Of course, the fix is something you have to run repeatedly because they didn't really FIX it.