Accrual Engine ACE. WBS settlement. Accrual doc types to be excluded

[laimonas_bindokaitis3]

Hi all,

I have a problem.

We are using accrual engine functionality, which enables to have accruals on the same cost accounts as primary costs.

SO. We have Purchase order, account assignment WBS. Say, 100 EUR. We have issued some deliveries (debit Cost element 1), say 20 EUR, and the rest of PO is generated as accrual document with debit 80 EUR Cost Element 1.

When it comes to settlement at CJ88 - CJ88 considers 100 EUR on CE1. And I need to settle 20 EUR only.

Provided and rejected options:

a) Special WBS that only holds PO accruals

b) Special account for accruals

any more ideas please ? Next I consider to build masive Z program which will essentially replace CJ88, and it will be called "settlement by document type or accrual object reference".

[Paulo_Vitoriano]

Hi Laimonas,

Okay, maybe a crazy idea, but your setup is already insane.

Make those "accrual" postings statistical, so they will not settle anywhere.

All you need to do is to have a second account assignment object with higher priority. I believe a dummy business process can make it. And it can be a substitution based on the document type.

Regards,

Paulo

[laimonas_bindokaitis3]

thanks for that one. It does not look promising, but I will think it through.

[Paulo_Vitoriano]

Z settlement program will have a long lasting impact on a client and SAP will reject any support for it. Above option is 100% standard and pure customizing.

[Ken_Melching]

I would always keep accruals on separate cost elements.

Accruals are usually posted as late as possible during period end close and then reversed on the first day of the new period. You can make sure the period end close sequence does not include accrual postings during settlement.

[laimonas_bindokaitis3]

Hi Ken,

the client went away from that. They had this in "ECC era", and now with S4 implementation they seek for ACE engine and same cost elements.

client accruals on separate accounts - for client it means duplicating cost accounts in CoA and returning back to what they had previously. I challenged them to have 1 or few accrual CE - they did not buy it.

Laimonas

[Ken_Melching]

Look into settlement customer enhancements where you can influence what postings are settled by some other attribute than cost element.

[laimonas_bindokaitis3]

I found nothing with these keywords in SAP Notes knowledge base. Is there a special way and place to browse on the customer enhancements for what they are and what they do?

[Ken_Melching]

Some of them are listed in SPRO in the right area, otherwise get with a developer. They know how to access them.

[laimonas_bindokaitis3]

thank you sir.

[Paulo_Vitoriano]

Hi Laimonas,

I am not familiar with ACE or maybe your example is not totally accurate.

The accrual posting is essentially a cost recognition that otherwise was supposed to come via GR or SR (SES), but for some reason did not.

It is never an outstanding commitmnet like in your example with PO for the value of 100 EUR.

That means that real accruals are always settled without any issues. Your problem seems artificial because the ACE having a strange logic in such case to post outstanding commitment as accrual.

Regards,

Paulo

[laimonas_bindokaitis3]

Hi Paulo,

I agree with you. I have to work with this, I promise I will not recommend this setup to any other client :). But now I need to come up with solution so that we all do not end up in jail :).

The idea here is that approved PO becomes accrual. And with ACE it does not need to be reversed, also accruals are posted on the same cost elements as the PO line item, with different business transaction and different doc type. Something like that.

I need to settle only 20 EUR, because intercompany charging is involved further, and partner company does not appreciate 100 EUR cost which they are getting now, as standard settlement does not differentiate on document type or business transaction level.

regards,

Laimonas

[Paulo_Vitoriano]

Hi Laimonas,

I see some contradiction in what you are saying. You said that such accruals does not need to be reversed. If we have GR for 20 and “accrual” for 80, next we do another GR for 40, what ACE will post if not changing 80 to 40?

Settlement program is very complex, it will not be easy to write any good Z substitute.

Regards,

Paulo

[laimonas_bindokaitis3]

after next 40 GR, accrual is of course released partially and becomes 80 - 40 = 40.

Yes, I can see the complicated Z. And before I start with this I need to exaust all other options.

Laimonas