Community mailing list archives


Re: Intermediate Costing in MRP

VentorTech, Oleg Kuryan
- 02/01/2017 03:22:42

Hi David,

Thank you for your thoughts. Can I ask you differently to keep your story a little bit shorter.

Are you talking about possibility to have in Odoo mature and usable functionality of Cost and Profit centers? With possibility to  re-distribute costs and profit dynamically at any period of time whenever company decides to do that?

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017, 11:51 AM David Arnold <> wrote:
Continuing thoughts... Kick in, if you want.

Maybe I'm wrong and Odoo's future stance (since V9 accounting with tags) is focused on compilation at the moment of retrieving as opposed to compilation at the moment of registering. (This is also what the docs on analytic pivot table looks like)
This however, in the case of analyticals, would rapidly lack of time dynamics, as distribution of costs from overhead towards the centers might potentially have a validity date range. In the end, probably the thing is just not to touch this topic too much and leave it to what comes after the xls-export button. However, then, a standard path to center controlling would be very much appreciable.

By the way, as we are among disruptive folks, I guess a department implementation (through hr app) just as elegant as the new company implementation, penetrating into the move line concept and PL standard reporting, is nothing to discard. On the accounting level this would just zero out (="streamline") the single most common use case of analytics, where often time, we see folks building a secondary department structure in analytics, or now, even worse "analytic tags". (Whatever that might actually be, it's so much arbitrary that using it might be a future migration risk.) On the business level this might incentive people to marginally spread out administrative interaction with Odoo into the departments, which drives both, more license revenue for Odoo and greater hinted-on efficiency benefit for the Client. Think paradigmatic: "value in the system should be moved by the same user who moves it in reality".

And once we think that pattern in a streamlined manner, if it's acceptable on the db query level performance wise, I'd appreciate an analytic ttype, so that each application can keep hijacking this concept, yet in a little more civilized way. This would pave the way for yet more hijacking and eventually splitting it up, although the different depth drill down in the pivot view mixing a lot hell of concepts is a nice feature. Why not a dedicated app called "Controlling" to enlighten a bit the conceptual jungle for everyone?

Best Regards, 
David Arnold

El sáb., 31 dic. 2016 a las 10:33, David Arnold (<>) escribió:

If you don't agree, please veto and correct me.

I opinion that there is one functionality missing in Odoo which would pave the way for intermediate (& elegant) cost controlling.

Given that we accept and acknowledge  well known center concepts, the lack of a simple possibility to encode cost allocation from different auxiliary cost centers to their final bearers is astonishing. As far as I know, it even has been dropped while some hardly usable implementation existed in prior versions! Germans call this allocation sheet BAB or Betriebsabrechnungsbogen and it's such a commonplace concept, that I pretty much doubt that it would be less common place amongst controllers (not accountants!) around the world. The possibilities of the new interface, see ex. Timesheets, should open the possibilities to solve this attribution definition in a UX optimized manner.

While I guess a PR to upstream should be sincerely discussable with responsible persons at Odoo HQ, I also noticed a second flaw in the activity based costing approach of the new MRP application:

While general ledger is affected correctly (!) on every consumption activity, be it material or cost of an activity, the analytical entries (here used as auxiliary entries to be able to identify and manually cross the general ledger difference on the production account caused by the valuation increase on it's credit side due to activity costs) are only affected at the time of finishing the production.

While valid for the stable use case, it provides inconsistencies in the unstable use case where work centers do not obey a constant cost structure (think of agricultural work centers such as a harvesting squadron). In the case of changing work center cost structure it can produce the inconvenient situation, where costs are correctly accounted for on the general ledger while analytic entries are produced based on the cost registered at time of termination of the production, not the activity.

I guess this is a flaw or even a functional bug in the system and it seems it hasn't been accounted for yet.

Any opinions? Someone Wang's to join a PR effort to upstream?

Some time ago, seasoned implementers recommended phantom products, but given the principle that cost controlling is not general leader's business and given the new activity based approach through analytical accounts, this recommendation has become less valid.



Post to: