Counting Journals

We have many warehouses (all on the same AX site) all stocking many items identical (same item number) as each other.

We are proposing to use counting journals to stocktake these warehouses, some of which will be stocktaken at the same time.

It appears, or at lest as per our current parameters, that if an item is in an existing counting journal for warehouse A then when the second counting journal is raised for warehouse B and the lines created the on hand stock for those items in warehouse A are not listed, only ones that are unique to B.

Is this set by parameter or just part of the AX functionality ?

You need to create a warehouse item record for each warehouse to achieve this.

The counting journal references the warehouse item record. When you create an item it creates a blank warehouse item and if you start a count at warehouse A and there is no warehouse item record for A it sets teh counting started flag and updates the reference journal. Then if you try and generate a count for the same journal at warehouse B and you do not have a warehouse item record it looks to update the blank record, sees it is already being counted and skips it. To test this you can run teh count on A, go to the blank warehouse record and then untick the counting started flag, then it will appear in B.

There are two lines of code in the count generation that can be commented out. This prevents the counting started flag being set. The downside of this is you can cross count areas and potentially double post differences - but this should be controlled as part of the stock check control procedure. Your other alternative is to create a warehouse item record for every item across all warehouses.

Hi Phil,

This is how AX works and this is practical also. When you create counting journal, you need to select inventory dimension and there we define on what basis we are counting.

Take live example also, each warehouse has a warehouse manager and they do count inventory at the month end and there are higher chances that the count at same time.

Well. what is your requirement?


Not really practical in a multi-warehouse chaos storage facility doing concurrent counting. Take a service business with 100 mobile vans servicing vending machines all carrying common items. You have the following choices:

  1. Create 100 warehouse items manually for every item potentially stocked in the servce van. Lets say 1000 parts, so 100000 records.

  2. Do not count the serive vans at the same time.

Both not practical in my opinion.

It works in certain scenarios, few warehouses with cyclical non-consecutive counts, but it cripples multi-warehouse environments that want to count simultaneously and do not want to set up millions of warehouse items for the annual count. Then there is the restriction that the counting started is by warehouse, you cannot split counts down at location level, which most do, so in itself the warehouse item record is at a level too high, but I would not advocate the creation of warehouse-location-item records [:D]

Hi ,

From the above post what i have understood is AX does not support the Counting at the same time for all warehouses .

Is it correct ?

No not at all, create a warehouse item for each and simulataneous counting across multiple warehouses encounters no issues.

Hi Adam ,

I think phil is facing the same problem .

You are telling that we need to create the warehouse item , what does it mean ?

what is the difference between Item and warehouse item ? how to create warehouse item in AX ?

( Generally we will create one item across the company , will receive the item to multiple warehouses )

From the item record select the setup button (pre AX2012, manage stock action tab in AX2012) and then the warehouse item option - here you define parameters by warehouse for the item - it is the warehouse item record. The rest I have said above. As Phil has NOT defined a warehouse item he is experiencing it, again as I explained above.

After more than two years your answer save us a lot of research in AX 2012 R3 regarding the same issue, thanks a lot!