under what circumstances, the "Assigned" value exceeds "Current Budget"

[Former Member]

Hi all,

Under what circumstances, the "Assigned" value exceeds "Current Budget" in budget reports like CJ31? What are the possible reasons for this?

Any hints are very much appriciate.

thanks.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi,

1.Check whether the availability control is active or not.

2.Check the tolerance limits because system will control the cost against the budget on the basis of tolerance limits.

3.Cost element Exemption

Muzamil

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Dear Muzamil,

Thank you vey much for your valuable input. I have checked item 1 and item 2, the availability control is active for that project and tolerence limit is correctly set.

For item 3, could you elaborate more? Thanks.

Michael

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi,

Check in OPTK,whether you have Exempted some Cost elements.

If you have exempted any Cost element then the cost elements are not taken into account in availability control.

Muzamil

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Great thanks.

Then the question comes to how to check if a project uses any cost element that had been exampted? Can I check the report

S_ALR_87013543 to get that info?

Michael

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi,

You can compare the budget vs actual for that WBSE,if budget is exceeded then you can understand that there is cost exemption but you cant check in report which cost element has been exempted.you need to check the config for that .

Muzamil

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Muzamil,

I checked in OPTK, there's only one cost element under the control area, however, the project(belong to the same control area) that has budget exceeding doesn't use that cost element. So I guess this is also not the root cause. What do you think?

Michael.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Michael,

Please check the output of report BPFCTRA0. You will be able to analyse the origin of the assigned value as well as the affecting cutomizing. For more info, check note 178837.

Best regards

Martina

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Martina,

I executed the report BPFCTRA0, the report didn't issue any error, does that mean the project is legal from availability control point of view?

I also checked the output, the "Assigned" value and "Distributable" value are exactly the same as that in CJ31, and the Assigned value is greater than the Distributable value which is the same as the Current Budget in CJ31.

Then I further checked the PM orders assigned to this WBS, finding for some orders, the Actual Cost is greater than Plan Cost, does this lead the Assigned value exceed Current Budget?

I'm really puzzled by so many finance terms, so please help me out. Thanks a lot

Michael.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Michael,

The output of program BPFCTRA0 gives a complete explanation how the 'active' assigned value is calculated. It shows a hierarchical list of all objects which belong to a budget carrier (if you expand the list) and an overview of all postings which are included in the calculation of the active assigned value.

The assigned value from BPFCTRA0 should correspond with the CJ31assigned value.

There is a 'hidden' OK-code which can be used in report BPFCTRA0 ('=SUM'). If you enter this ok-code in the result list of BPFCTRA0, the system recalculates the assigned value and compares it with the result list. If there is an inconsistency, you will get a popup. These can be fixed with CJBN. If no popup is issued everything is consistent.

On the other hand, the fact that the actual value is greater than the plan value in the assigned PM orders is not relevant here. If the budget is exceeded the system should not allow posting the actual value regardless of the plan value.

Can you please check the WBS element current status and if it is possible to post any new commitment or actual for this WBS element?

Thanks

Martina

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Martina,

Thanks a lot for your detailed explanation.

I entered the ok code from the BPFCTRA0 result list, and it did issue a popup saying it found the inconsistency.

I checked the WBS status, the system status of this WBS element is "REL BUDG ISBD AVAC" and it's not possible to post any new actual or commitment to this WBS element.

We now want to find the reason why the Assigned value exceeds the Distributable value, any more clues? Thanks.

Michael.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Michael,

It is difficult to know without being able to see the situation in your system. Probably, the system allowed posting beyond available budget due to the inconsistency you had in your assigned value.

Acoording to your description, your system is working correctly now not allowing new postings as the budget is already exceeded.

Please consider reporting the matter to OSS and probably, they will be able to find the reason why the budget was exceeded in the first place.

I´m sorry I cannot give you further hints on this matter.

Best regards

Martina

[pradeep_mahamuni · Accepted solution]

Hi Michaelqin,

Can you please the setting in "Define Tolerence limit" in you customization ? is it set to ++ for all transactions or limited to some specific transactions ?

If it is limited to spsecific transaction then system will check the budget at the time of execution of that transactions only.

If your requirement is budget check for all transactions then set ++.

Also check for cost elements used for material / service procurement or actual posting secondary cost element is created or not and in transaction OBYC entries for GBB, BSX are correctly maintained.

If for particular GL secondary cost element is not created system will not check for the budget.

If your assigned values are alredy crossed the budget limit then in past budget check was not happened for while executing the transaction so in reoprt you are getting the assigned values more that budget values.

Please check and revert back.

[former_member209919]

Hi,

I have an standar situation than assigned is greater than budgeted, this happens when we reserves a material from an orden This makes a reseves of material ( this material won't be available for other objects) but instead of reserve the budget then this budget is not available for other things , SAP understand this as a planned order ( create in CO tables a entry with value type 25 that don´t impact in the budget) . Then standard reports understans this reserves than a assigned value, but really this 'found' is not commitment or spent.

I hope this can be useful

[Former Member]

Thanks everyone, you input gives really valuable clues. Although not there yet, but I feel I'm pretty close to it.

I found for the problematic WBS, there're some POs generated, and these POs later had the GR postings. According to note 46209, the GR posting will not trigger the availability control. I need to further examine these samples.

Another interesting thing is, for some WBS element, even negative Assigned value is showing in CJ31. Any input on this?

Michael

Edited by: michaelqin on Feb 4, 2010 10:29 AM

[Former Member]

I found for the problematic WBS, there're some POs generated, and these POs later had the GR postings. According to note 46209, the GR posting will not trigger the availability control. I need to further examine these samples.

Yes that is correct, the system will check the budget again when invoice document is being created ONLY IF the value increases (compared to GR value). Please check note 783161

Like I said in my previous post, once PR/PO can be created because one of the conditions mentioned in note 47992 is not fulfilled, then the actual posting can be made and no error is issued because during PR/PO creation the availability control is not working

[pradeep_mahamuni]

Hi Michaelqin,

Please check if budget check is happening while doing MIGO ot ML81N in you system. I think budget is not happening for this transaction in your system. You can check this by doing this more than the PO value.

If not please implement the note 696362 to activate the budget availability check.

please check and confirm.

regards,

[Former Member]

Some latest findings regarding this issue.

I ran the transaction S_ALR_87013558 and found for the problematic project, adding up the column "ActualTotal" and "RemOrdPlanTotal" is the same as "AssignedTotal" value, which exceeds the "BudgetTotal", further I found the ammout of "RemOrdPlanTotal" is coming from one PM order, which I think is where the problem is. But can anyone tell me what the "RemOrdPlanTotal" means and how this value contributes to the Assigned value and exceeds the budget?

Edited by: michaelqin on Feb 11, 2010 7:50 AM

[Former Member]

Michael,

The remaining order plan is a key figure of a WBS element and is calculated temporarily with value type 25 during report execution as follows, for example, per order:

apportioned planned costs of the order - actual cost of the order - commitments of the oder = xxx.

If xxx > 0, this xxx represents the contribution of the order to the remaining order plan value of the WBS element - otherwise the contribution is zero.

Please review note 178837 for the contribution of the RemOrderPlan to the assigned value.

Rgds

Martina

[Former Member]

Thanks Martina,

Let me try to understand the situation.

If the total budget for WBS element W1 is 1000, and 3 PM orders has already occupy 800. Now we create a fourth PM order O1 under W1, and planned cost of O1 is 300, and we post the actual cost of 100 of O1, in this case, the AVAC won't happen because the tollerance limit hasn't been reached(800 + 100 < 1000).

However, when we execute CJ31 for this WBS W1, we will see 1100 showing under Assigned column, out of the 1100, the reamining order plan of O1 (300-100=200) is also included. And this will give user the perception of budget overrun?

Am I right?

Regards,

Michael

[Former Member]

Michael,

As fas as I understand the system behaviour, your assumption is right.

Orders can be apportioned or appended (OPSV)

-Apportioned order update: The plan value of the order is added to the committed value of the corresponding WBS element. Plan values increase the assigned value.

-Appended order update: The plan value of the order is added to the plan value of the corresponding WBS element.

As a rule, the following applies:

Orders for project with status "released" are always apportioned.

Orders for project with status "technically complete", "closed", or "deleted" are never apportioned

Please check your settings in OPSV and the order status.

Hope this helps

Regards

Martina

[Former Member]

Hi Martina,

One last thing puzzling me. If the planned value increased the assigned value as you said, why, In my example, the planned cost of O1 can be posted without any error? Since 800+300>1000, I think this planned cost should NOT be allowed to post. The tollerance limit in our system has been correctly set.

Please advise.

Thanks and Regards,

Michael

Edited by: michaelqin on Feb 12, 2010 2:41 AM

[Former Member]

Michael,

reached this point, I´m afraid that I´m puzzled too...

Can anyone contribute here and help us clarify???

Thanks and sorry

Rgds

Martina

[Former Member]

Dear Martina & Michael,

Please check Note 165085 - Availability control for apportioned orders

It has a clear explanation with examples too 😃

[Former Member]

Kealin,

Thanks for the hint!

It explains the situation

rgds

Martina

[Former Member]

Hi Kealin,

Scenarios in note 165085 are all based on the fact that the Assigned value is already larger than the Budget, but it doesn't tell why and when the Assigned value exceeds the Budget.

Anything I missed?

Michael

[Former Member]

Dear Michael,

In its prerequisites, note 165085 already mentioned about the value that exceeds the budget

 The planned costs or the actual costs of one or more orders/networks for the WBS element caused an assigned value which already exceeds the budget on the WBS element.

Regards,

Kealin

[Former Member]

Hi Michaelqin,

Is the cost coming from PR/PO? If it is, maybe you could check note 47992

There are 4 conditions explained in this note where the active availability control does not respond during PR/PO creation.

In my company, the common cause of budget exceeded without error is the 4th condition.

Hope it helps 😃

[former_member711289]

There can be difference in material price becoz os MAP (Moving average price). In case of big changes in price suck problems use to ciome.

Regards

Abhishek

[Former Member]

Michael,

Also, exchange rates due to currency changes and non deductible taxes may be affecting.

Rgds

Martina

[Former Member]

Thanks everyone for your valuable input. I really appreciate that.

Martina,

I checked the system, there seems to be no currency changes to any orders assigned to that WBS, and in regards to non deductible taxes, I need to consult our FI/CO guys for more details, it's not my area. If you can elaborate more, I would be very grateful.

Pradeep,

I checked the IMG, the tolerance limit has already been set to ++ for all transactions.

In OBYC, the entries for GBB, BSX are ticked.

Regards the statement "If for particular GL secondary cost element is not created system will not check for the budget.

", can you elaborate more on this?

[pradeep_mahamuni]

PS system reports and budget check is cost element driven.

If you are postin some actual cost to some GL using a/c assignment as WBS and for that GL seconday cost element is not creaed then syem will post the cost to GL but it will not shown in WBS report for actual cost and also busdget check will not happen if for that WBS AVAC is activated.

In short for PS system to get any reoprt or budget check to happen then for the used GL secondary cost element is required.

Also please insure the entries in GBB and BSX that all GL accounts you are using are entered in the respective area.

regards,

[Former Member]

Michael,

With regards to the taxes... are you budgeting with or without tax??? If you budget without tax you can have your budget exceed.

For example:

Budget 1000

PO value: 1000 + 16% VAT = 1160

Part of the 16% VAT can be dedutible and part can be non deductible. For example 100 is non deductible and 60 is deductible

This means that the commitment is:

1000+100 = 110...

Anyway, I guess you should check it with your FI/MM colleagues as you mention.

Regards

Martina