on 02-23-2018 3:28 PM
Dear all,
I have a client having this requirement: they have an Account structure which frequentely changes across different years. Basically they reclassify their leaf accounts under different nodes. Therefore they want to be able to run their reports with the historical structure (e.g. balance sheet for 2016 should reflect 2016 hierarchy etc.).
Given that they don't want to create new Accounts every year, I was thinking about different options:
Have you ever faced this requirement? do you have any other suggestions?
We are working on BPC 10.1 NW
Thanks in advance for your valuable suggestions
Best regards
Francesco
TDH - for report you can have only single keydate. To compare you will have to use multiple reports.
Multiple hierarchies is a disaster in maintenance 🙂
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Hi Vladim,
thanks for your reply. I agree on multiple hiearchies.
TDH then is not a solution that will cover 100% my requirements: you can run a balance sheet on one period, but you cannot effectively run comparison report (anyway it's better than nothing)
I have been thinking about other options.
1-I could create a separate dimension for leaf level accounts. Account dimension will contain only the reporting level accounts. Leaf accounts will be plugged into reporting accounts through a mapping. if next year mapping changes, reporing accounts will be fed differently. The cons is that I will loose the hierarchical structure of account (and drill down in reports) and I will need an additional mapping
2-I could create a dummy element under each account node. At the end of the process, I could copy my data in a final version, from the original accounts into the dummies. the cons is that maintaining Account dimension will be harder
Would anyone see any other options? have you ever been facing this kind of issue?
Thanks a lot
Rgds
Francesco
"they have an Account structure which frequentely changes across different years" - there is something wrong with finance organization 🙂
I don't know a real business requirements to frequently change accounts structure! In the real life you add accounts, create new nodes etc... But not moving accounts between nodes! If you compare nodes with different leaf members across years - looks like "creative accounting"!
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Hi Vladim, I understand your point. the point is that the client is not willing to create new accounts in the source system (they don't run SAP ERP, they have another system with less flexibility and multiple chart of accounts to manage). Given that, I have to make a proposal to cover their requirement. "creative accounting"? maybe, but consider that the final report will not show leaf level accounts. If some auditors ask them to justify one figure, then it's up to them to tell why (I am sure for italian law there is no constrain in reclissify accounts, but honestly that's out of my responsibility)
So I guess Finance has a model in its mind and if BPC cannot cover that requirement, they will argue that BPC is not the right tool to produce their financial statements.
Rgds
Franceso
"the final report will not show leaf level accounts. If some auditors ask them to justify one figure, then it's up to them..." - that's a key question! Reclass is fine based on transaction with some supporting document...
"they will argue that BPC is not the right tool to produce their financial statements" - not the tool to produce strange statements 🙂
User | Count |
---|---|
6 | |
5 | |
2 | |
1 | |
1 | |
1 | |
1 | |
1 | |
1 | |
1 |
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.