Breakdown for a reconciliation account - in BCS

[former_member200190]

ECC6.0 / SEM6.0

Client is a service provider.

Its accounts payables constitutes in majority amount payable to financial institiutes.

In GL it has one reconciliation account for all these accounts payable.

Since we can map only one item to a GL in the item hierarchy, how to ensure the breakdown for this item.

Can we reflect this through a breakdown category - if so how?

If not, request your insights.

Cheers

Kumar

Edited by: Kumar on Jul 31, 2008 8:38 PM

Edited by: Chakradhar Chilukuri on Jul 31, 2008 10:47 PM

[former_member200190]

Hi,

Re:- "The ECC must provide trade partner information (code) for A/P"

Do you mean the trading partner field in the Business partner master? If so, then we need to define these institutes as trading partners in ECC as well. Will it not defeat the meaning of the term trading partner?

Request your valuable insights.

Cheers

Kumar

[Former Member]

Ok, practical implementation:

Suggestions:

- New flexible GL is used;

- Preparation for consolidation is fulfilled;

- datasource 0SEM_BCS_10 is used from ECC side;

- trading partner in master data of vendors and clients (NOT BUSINESS PARTNERS) is set for units of the Group.

If I didn't miss anything, that will be the main steps in getting trading partners for A/P & A/R items from 0SEM_BCS_10 datasource in BW/BCS.

P.S. It's for legal consolidation only. Not for a matrix.

[former_member200190]

Eugene - sorry i misled you to answer how to derive trading partner for Vendors.

Scenario - My accounts payable consists of outstandings to various financial institutes. These financial institutes are not my trading partners.

I want to see in my Consolidation reports - break up of the accounts payable - broken down by amount due to each financial institute seperately.

Since GL has one reconciliation account for all these line item data in AP, we can map only this reconciliation account to an item in the BCS.

Stuck here - how to bring that break up into the consolidation system.

I cant give financial institute as a trading partner in the vendor master - that would be a fallacy.

Re : - It's for legal consolidation only - Yes

Rest all conditions - Yes.

[dan_sullivan]

Trading partner should definitely not be used for this. Trading partner is for inter-unit reporting, analyses, and eliminations.

Some suggestions are to use a subassignment such as consolidation transaction type, business area (if not already being used), statistical internal order, etc. As long as the subassignment is included in the BCS datamodel and assigned the role of subassignment the reporting should be available.

[Former Member]

Sorry Dan,

IMHO:

Trading partner identification in master data records of vendors and clients is one of the means of getting partner info (the mast) in using of the new GL.

Please explain your words here:

Trading partner should definitely not be used for this.

[dan_sullivan]

According to Kumar's response: "My accounts payable consists of outstandings to various financial institutes. These financial institutes are not my trading partners. I want to see in my Consolidation reports - break up of the accounts payable - broken down by amount due to each financial institute seperately." my argument is to not use trading partner for this information as it could possibly cause eliminations where they are not indended. Plus, the trading partner value is tied to the cons unit master.

[former_member200190]

Thanks, Dan / Eugene.

I'm closing this thread.

Cheers

Kumar

[Former Member]

Exactly because of the requirements you just mentioned, I'd go for trading partners as I described, and using maybe single selection for units to be treated as I/C and be eliminated.

In this case I'd have breakdown by A/P-A/R as user requried for non-group companies and avoid these units from I/C eliminations.

[Former Member]

The ECC must provide trade partner information (code) for A/P.

The item in BCS must have a breakdown category with this partner.