Asset Budgeting & Capitalization in PS/FM

[meet_waseem]

Dear Experts,

We are facing an Asset Budgeting & Capitalization scenario at a client where FM & PS both are being implemented along with other core modules. Here client has structured asset GLs at broader level as explained below:

Example: Tangible Non-Current Assets -> IT Assets -> Laptop, Telephone, Printer, Fax Machine etc.

GL is created at ‘IT Assets’ level. There is no GL created for Laptop, Telephone, LCD or Fax Machine.

Because Commitment Item is mapped with GL in FM, budget will be committed at 'IT Assets' level only, so we cannot commit budget and see FM reporting at individual asset (e.g. Laptop, Telephone, Printer etc) level.

Arguably they are planning to use PS as an alternative solution. Following above example, a Project will be created for ‘IT Assets’ and WBS Elements would be created for each individual asset. Budgeting will be done and tracked within the PS dimension and reporting will be available at WBS Element level.

I don’t agree to use PS to address the requirements because, at first instance, it is not designed for such activities like procuring assets available off-the-shelf in market and secondly, it will create hassle for end-user because it will be a cumbersome task for him to perform complete PS cycle every time even for a single low value asset.

Instead I am looking to suggest ‘Internal Order’ approach. It is easier & logical to open internal order for each kind of asset whereas integration with FM will be Asset->IO->CC->FC. Hence budgeting with FM will enable budget reports at Commitment Item level as well as at IO level in CO for comprehensive reporting.

Please advise whether IO approach is sufficient or is there much better solution available.

Regards

Muhammad Waseem

[iklovski · Accepted solution]

Hi,

I won't be so harsh on the PS option; it definitely suits the purpose. There is no substantial difference between budgeting I/O or WBS; whatever you feel more convenient with, you can use. But, there is no difference what-so-ever: both are controlling objects and both have the same functionalities.

Regards,

Eli

[meet_waseem]

Dear Eli,

Thanks for your timely response.

Please suggest out of WBS and IO options, which one is practically more convenient for end-user.

Regards

[iklovski]

I would prefer I/O, as it's much more simpler to maintain. PS module is a bit cumbersome, and unless you are planning to use its other functions, such as logistic planning, structured WBS, etc., there is no advantage over the usage of I/O.