Summarizing multiple billable hourly rates in an invoice?

[nycL45]

We have a timecard invoice that *almost* correctly summarizes the total hours against multiple hourly billable rates ($/hrs).

Explanation:

/ Say there are two billable rates, a = a $/hr. and b = b $/hr., and the data input is a chronological listing of six entries with those two billable rates: a, b, a, a, b, & b.

/ The invoice that is presently created summarizes the six entries like this: a, b, 2a, & 2b

/ What we want is the invoice to summarize it as 3a & 3b.

The "a, b, 2a, & 2b" currently appears on our invoice in the Part, "Sub-summary by billable rate/hour (Trailing)" with the following Merge fields and text in the layout: "<> hours invoiced at $<>".

Finally, the "Billable rate per hour" field is included in the Sort.

So, what I need help with is how to summarize it as 3a & 3b in the Sub-summary Part on hour invoice. The example here is with two hourly billable rates when we could have several different hourly billable rates in an invoice.

Whew! I hope that makes sense.

Leonard

[comment]

It sounds like your records aren't sorted by the field specified in the sub-summary part.

[nycL45]

Comment, thanks for responding.

The Sort and field are the same.

Is there a better way of doing the same thing?

Leonard

Edited November 18, 2008 by Guest

[comment]

I don't follow your setup that well (those a, b names are pretty confusing). AFAICT, it should work the way you have described. Perhaps you should post a demo file showing the problem.

[nycL45]

Comment,

To provide a working FMP7 example requires far more time than I have so, the following is an example of what I included in my original post. The subtotals and totals are intentionally omitted because they are addressed in separate fields. Also, I am using "a" and "b" to relate the example below with my use of those terms in my first post.

To start: a=$35/hr and b=$60/hr

1) Our Timesheet Data Input layout entries:

a> 10hrs @ $35/hr=

b> 2hrs @ $60/hr=

a> 8hrs @ $35/hr=

a> 5hrs @ $35/hr=

b> 1hr @ $60/hr=

b> 3hrs @ $60/hr=

(In my post, this is noted as a, b, a, a, b, & c.)

2) What we want on our Invoice layout:

a> 23hrs @ $35/hr=

b> 6hrs @ $60/hr=

where, 23hrs is the total of 3 Timesheet Data items input at $35/hr and 3 items totaling 6hrs at $60/hr. (In my post, this is noted as 3a & 3b.)

3) What is appearing on our Invoice

The following currently appears on our invoice in the Part, "Sub-summary by billable rate/hour (Trailing)" with the following Merge fields and text in the layout: "<> hours invoiced at $<>".

a> 10hrs @ $35/hr=

b> 2hrs @ $60/hr=

a> 13hrs @ $35/hr=

b> 4hrs @ $60/hr=

where 13hrs is from the 8hrs + 5hrs entries and the 4hrs is from the 1hr + 3hrs entries. (In my post, this is noted as a, b, 2a & 2b.)

HTH

Leonard

Edited November 18, 2008 by Guest

[comment]

If your records are sorted by the rate field then how come you are seeing an unsorted pattern? I'm afraid I cannot help you with this without seeing what you have actually done.

To provide a working FMP7 example requires far more time than I have

If you don't want to spend the time required to fix this, why should I? It only takes a few minutes to produce a simple file like this.

WorkingExample.fp7.zip

[Lee Smith]

It seems like you have already spent "more time then you have" trying to explain your problem.

A copy of the files will spead things up in getting to the root of the problem. It is a very simple process to save s clone or your file, either with or without data, zipping the files, and then including them with a Reply to your post.

I agree with comment, you need to give of your time, if you expect us to give you ours.

Lee

[nycL45]

If you don't want to spend the time required to fix this, why should I?

I would not have bothered to have posted here or to have produced the two posts above if I was not serious. Your comment is harsh, rude, disappointing and unnecessary, given you know absolutely nothing about me or my situation.

You are the only one to have responded to my query and I genuinely appreciated your response. Although this is a setback, hopefully someone else will step up and help me.

Thanks and good luck.

[nycL45]

I agree with comment, you need to give of your time, if you expect us to give you ours.

I am accustomed to posting files and images to speed solutions, however, I did what is IMHO the most expeditious. In this case, I chose what I considered to be a complete explanation with the least time expended.

If the file was something simple, I would have enclosed it with my original post. It a multi-module interconnected invoicing system and to me, an I am not an expert, it would have taken longer to have reduced it.

FileMaker is a fantastic sw that I have enjoyed immensely and told many others about over the years. It is unfortunate and again, disappointing, that my request for help has turned into this misjudging of me. It is not what is said, it is how it is said.

[nycL45]

My apologies for loosing my temper. I have this thing about treating people fairly and kindly and giving them the benefit of the doubt. I do not jump people and try not to judge them. It does set me off when it happens to me. Nailing people happens too frequently on forums.

I really do enjoy FileMaker and believe it to be an excellent tool for abstract (mental) gymnastics along with more practical matters. It is an awesome app. Unfortunately, I am not a pro like many of the people here but I enjoy the time I spend with FM.

I will always try to make my presentation as simple and easy on the people I request help from, however, time or other factors do not always allow me to prepare the request to suit the other person. Sometimes it has to be short and as sweet as possible for me.

Anyway, I solved my problem – most likely with the help of the angst generated here. It was the Sort order.

Best regards to comment and Lee.

Leonard

[comment]

I do not jump people and try not to judge them.

Neither do I. This isn't and never was about you - it was about the best way to get to the bottom of your issue.

[Vaughan]

Anyway, I solved my problem... It was the Sort order.

Wow. Isn't that what Comment suggested in the very first reply to your question?

[nycL45]

Not quite. I had an item, "Period", in the sort group and when I removed it the order was corrected. "Period" was included to force records with that field empty to the bottom of the stack.

Vaughan, about 5 or 6 years ago you and others here helped me numerous times. Your avatar is exactly the same. I am not here to be a problem; I just came by for some help – we non-pros need it now and then. Enough has been said and we all need to get along with one another.

Leonard

[LaRetta]

You are very lucky I wasn't around early today to read this thread. As it is, I'll just sweep up a bit ...

Your comment is harsh, rude, disappointing and unnecessary, given you know absolutely nothing about me or my situation.

Comment was neither rude, harsh nor unnecessary. I suggest you cease with the egg-shell behaviors and, if you are going to ask for others' opinions then be willing to 1) listen and 2) do some work yourself. Just because someone suggests you do SOME of the work yourself, doesn't mean you can jump them. Not here ... not with me around anyway.

Hopefully someone else will step up and help me.

You had the best. What else do you want? It took you more time to write the explanation than to create a demo file. Go figure.