Internal Order Settlement - KO88

[former_member222801]

Hi SCN Experts,

We have Purchase Orders created with account assignment category "F". Thats is with account assignment Order.

We have many goods receipts getting posted during month. and during month end, we will settle the Order on KO88 on percentage basis to respective AUC assets and usually the Order to AUC combination is 1:2. When we are doing the settlement on KO88, the total sum of the GR is getting settled to AUC's in a single line item with no trace of PO number at AUC level.

For better capitalization process, we strongly need to have the trace of PO and want to the see line item settled to AUC instead of total amount of GR. These IO's are not created as investment measures.

I tried using KOB5, but system doesn't allow line item settlement as the IO are not created as Investment measures.

Please help to let me know how to achieve this in SAP with any configuration change if required.

Regards,

Voona Vivek

[ajaycwa1981 · Accepted solution]

Hi Vivek

What you want is only possible with Investment Order.. Line items are managed only in Invt Order, but not in the Normal internal order

After you settle, may be you can try the report (Se38) RAHERK01 or 02.. It shows you the origins.. See if it helps

If you are careful while setting up the settlement rules, it should be good enough

If implementing the Investment Orders is ruled out as of now, I would suggest replace Int Order with AUC Asset in your PO i.e. use Acct Assignment Catg A instead of F... in the AUC, every line item will be shown separately

Rgds

Ajay M

[former_member200703]

Hi

we was using last year we was capitalizing the asset using this procedure in order to use internal order budgeting advantage to prevent extra spending.. y

recently we moved to the below asset purchasing cycle which give us better view and linking between asset /AUC and its GR P.O's

you may check this doc. it might provide better asset purchasing steps.

Regards

Mahmoud EL Nady

[former_member206852]

Hi Voona

For this, the allocation structure assigned to the settlement profile of your order type should have settlement cost elements as 'By Elements' rather than 'Settlement Cost Element';

Let me know if this fulfill your requirment?

Regards

Syed Zia Abbas

[former_member222801]

Hi Syed,

The setting s already maintained as mentioned above. We use same P&L account for all the  PO with account assignment category F and then settle the IO to respective AUCs. Please suggest for any alternative solution.

Regards,

Vivek

[former_member206852]

Dear Vivek,

Can you please send me the screenshot for KOB1 for any such one order (as on current date) ?

Regards

[former_member206852]

Dear Vivek

If you see below screen, where I have settled a simlar order, I can see PO number against each line item;

Regards

Abbas

[former_member222801]

Hi Syed,

You have shared the apt screen shot for my question.

We have exactly similar scenarios. As you can see in your settlement entry for software maintenance, The asset account 10110010 is getting posted with 34837.26 which is total of two GR postings.

What I am requesting is to let me know if there is a way instead of posting a single summation entry 34837.26 in AUC account, can we post the settlement in two line items same as the number of GR postings? This is because when when we try to capitalize to right final asset (tcode = AIAB) we cannot see that details of reference, we only see the summarized amounts according to the settlements done. (Under single IO we have close to an average of 100 PO's) .

Below is the sample of AIAB screen shot. Here we don't have track of any POs. Actually 14 GR's from 10 different PO's are making these below entries. Imagine in case of 100 PO's how do we track them?

So let me know your suggestions.

[former_member206852]

Dear Vivek

I do not see any standard configurable solution available for your requirement. In fact, if you analyse the requirement carefully, you will get to know that, at the time of settlement of an IO, you are not posting an entry via PO. So there cannot be any reference of PO in settlement entry.

You can try setting up a substitution rule via OBBH, where you can substitute the PO number in an assignment field (say) for all your settlement entries (Reference Tcode KO88) that has offsetting entry from GR/IR.

Give it a try.I think it should work.

Best regards

Syed Zia Abbas

[former_member222801]

Hi Syed,

Do you think if there is anyway we can use KOB5 with configuration change here? Even if the PO number doesn't appear its fine. At least instead of summing up, if it just do settlement based on each line item that would be great.

Meanwhile I will try for the substitution suggested by you and update here.

Regards,

Vivek