Hi,
I'm coming in on this thread late but still...
You should be able to make the job active or inactive, no different than any other type of function in any module. Active/Inactive should be a concept that is consistent across all modules.
Closing the job is like making inactive but it has too many implications on revenue recognition. And closing a job ignores a common problem related to warranty costs after the job is completed that often need to be recorded and posted.
I'll go beyond Steve's suggestion and say there should be almost no sites using Adagio Job Costing without using Simple Job Costing being enabled. The other revenue recognition methods within Job Costing create such huge admin costs (labour to reconcile accounts) and inaccurate data that I cannot understand why no one ever addresses simple costing as a solution in any Job Costing training.
If more consultants understood the implications of Simple Job Costing as a solution and why it takes all of the risk out of setting up job costing, that alone would drive lots of Adagio site sales to use Job Costing.
Archiving the job is a bad solution unless you were trying to really get rid of very old jobs. The problem with most job costing sites is that the job info needs to be kept longer than 7-8 years statutory reporting, for lots of client reporting, and so archiving is very bad in most sites.
I thought that the PO module when connected to Job Costing, dealt with the Closed Job issue at the time of allocating the PO details to the Job. And once again, why would anyone use AP instead of PO's for vendor invoice posting into Job Costing integration, except for having to do a work around for Holdbacks/Retainage on vendor invoices?
I suppose the suggested message pop up would be a better solution for notifying the user rather than closing the job.
There's lots of room for improvements in Adagio Job Costing.
Brian
Previous Topic
Index