At the bottom of a printed change order to the owner the line that says: "Net change by previous Change Orders" does not carry over approved change orders by change order number but rather by record number. The flaw in this method is that while change orders may be submitted to an owner for approval in sequential order they are not always approved in sequential order or they may require to be resubmitted. The owner then sees a net change that does not accurately reflect the approved change order values for a project and it cause some owners to become distressed in seeing these figues that have not been approved. Net change dollar values should not be dependant on the record number but rather by approved changed order dollar value for a particular project in order to ensure that the owner is obtaining the most current project costs.
by: Rik M. | over a year ago | Review and Reporting
Comments
I agree, who cares about the record number! It would also helpful if there is a line item that totals potential changes. Similar to the project audit report, that way the owner can see all costs, actual and potential.
Better yet, how about by approved date. Even the change order numbers can be approved out of sequence. The approved date is date oriented and therefore solves the problem.
Just change the formula and save it as a custom report.
Edit Form Design, Define calculated field, copy prmchg^prichg and paste to a new field. remove the "And PrmChg.RecNum < {PrmChg.RecNum}]" off the end of the formula.
We agree totally. The summary information should be based upon Status = 1 and Job# = Job# then total the Net change value accordingly. It may help clients and users of Sage100 if the system pulled "todays date" into the summary description so all parties would know that the net change number is valid as of approved documents as of that date stamp.
Back to offer a solution for Sage to address this: if you would create a new prmchg.status = 7 (name is something like "Approved out of Sequence") then edit the objects code to include "1,7" in the objects calculation, the summary would be correct and not based upon record number. Not the best code example, but hey this is a fix that can be done in ten minutes :-)
We cannot add "statuses" or I would edit the object properties myself.
If this isn't a valid solution, then how about a parameter in the Header of the change order record that would allow the users to manually force the code to include that (higher record #)...something like "status=1 and parameter override = 1" just a thought. It would provide us a way to include a higher or lower record # when we know the situation applies.
Pam
THIS IS HUGE - AND IS A CONSTANT MANUALLY PRINT TO WORD TO MAKE THE ADJUSTMENTS TO WHAT IS TRUE.
Very frustrating. The change orders should calculate by the approved date not by the record number!
This has been recommended over a year ago and STILL no fix????? This is something that should already be incorporated in a program such as Sage!