Extending Costs/Values Out

jeffkoke · Post by **jeffkoke** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 7:57 am

This is more of a statement and a question...or two, or three, or...

I've noticed that when entering items in the equipment inventory module that there is a quantity field.

If I have five items that are currently valued at $100 each, should the value be 5x the cost amount entered?

PC+ doesn't automatically extend the cost/value out, does it?

Part of what I'm getting at is that it seems to be left up to the person doing the data entry to figure out the extended costs/values.

How about this idea: Add two additional fields: extended cost, extended value.

To take this a step further, if (on at least an annual basis) I go through the inventory and adjust the value of an item (due to depreciation), it is still up to me to extend out the amount by the number of items...right?

To get to a desired (IMO) end state, is there a plan to be able to incorporate/transfer/update the chart of accounts when an equipment inventory is completed? It would be really nice to be able to have the equipment inventory associated with a (default) asset line in the CoA.

If I'm off base on any of this, please straighten me out.

Thanks,
Jeff

Post by **Zaphod** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 9:26 am

It doesn't surprise me that those fields don't do any sort of calculation. Record Keeping, in general, is pretty bare-bones. The last few upgrades have seen major changes and improvements in many of the features; Fund Accounting in v9, new features in v8.5, total report redesign and 16-bit to 32-bit in going from v7 to v8, DOS based to Windows based in 6.2 to 7, etc. The Record Keeping module tends to get left out. There have been a few changes, but mostly in field length and things like that. Honestly, we don't get a lot of suggestions for changing anything in Record Keeping, so we sort of assume that it's either fine the way it is, or no one is using it.

That said, v10 is in the planning stages now. There are a few ideas floating around for it, but nothing concrete. I'll pass this on to development to see how it fits into the overall scheme.

jeffkoke · Post by **jeffkoke** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 9:29 am

Zaphod wrote: That said, v10 is in the planning stages now. There are a few ideas floating around for it, but nothing concrete. I'll pass this on to development to see how it fits into the overall scheme.

Thanks for the info and passing the ideas up the ladder. Based on previous timelines, we're looking at a 12-18 month time frame in order to see some implementation, right?

Post by **Zaphod** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 11:45 am

18-24 is more like it.

jeffkoke · Post by **jeffkoke** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 12:31 pm

Zaphod wrote:18-24 is more like it.