Incorrect Budget Overview Report in BCS

[Former Member]

Hello Friends,

Please i urgently need your assistance.

The 'Overview of Budget Consumption' Report in SAP BCS shows inconsistent values.

To Start with, both Revenue and Expenditure commitment items are represented in the consumable budget with a negative sign. I don't know if this is correct.

secodnly, an analysis of a posting gives me the values below:

Consumable Budget: 100,000, 000- (with a negative Sign)

Consumed Budget : 15,000,000

Available Amount : 115,000,000 - (With a negative sign)

Is this computation correct for an expenditure item? I feel there is something wrong some where.

i expected the Available amount to be 85,000,00.

Please any assistance to help resolve this issue will be highly appreciated. i have been stuck with this issue for weeks.

Cheers and thanks in anticipation

[CesarCarreno · Accepted solution]

Hello Anthony, look at the note 739815 Sign convention in BCS

Best regards

César

[Former Member]

Hello Cesar,

Thanks for your response. I have reviewed the note which just further confirms that i have an issue some where. 'Revenues are stored positive, Expenditures are stored negative' as per the note.

in my case, everything in the consumable budget is stored as negative.

I understand that in customizing you can decide how the signs and stored in FMBB. In my case, i loaded the budget using FMCYLOAD and generated a budget from the loaded values. I did not enter the budget using FMBB (Budget work bench).

If i change the sign inversion in customizing, does it affetct the way the budget is consumed? Am i getting something wrong.

thanks in anticipation.

Cheers,

Tony

[iklovski]

Hi,

A standard BCS report will show comsumed and consumable amounts with a positive sign under assumption that your commitment item is defined with '3' category. Please, check if this is the situation. Also, if you inscribed your budget as negative (system does not prevent it unless you implemented special check), then the picture you described is also possible.

For general knowledge on signs in BCS, please look at the note which was mentioned already.

Regards,

Eli

[Former Member]

Hi Eli,

Thanks for your response.

What you have stated is the exacly my concern.

I expected the consumable amount and consumed amount to show me positive signs when the commitment item is an expenditure ( Financial Transaction 30, Category 3). Instead, I have -ve sign for consumable amount. my consumed amount is showing +ve which is fine. I double click the figures and all the listed trasactions are a reflection of what was posted in financials. The -ve consumable Budget mixes up everything and adds to the cosumed amount to give a misleading available amount.

What do you mean by 'Also, if you inscribed your budget as negative (system does not prevent it unless you implemented special check)'.

How do i check if i have inscribed my budget as -ve.

Many thanks for your anticipated response. This issue is driving me crazy.

cheers bro.

Anthony

[iklovski]

Hi Anthony,

Do you (or someone else) by any chance changed the customization for Information system in PSM? There, IMG - Public Sector Management - Information System - Define +/- Signs for Information System you can change the reports so the expenditures will be shown as negative. To check how you budget was inscribed, simply look at the budgetary document (FMEDD).

Regards,

Eli

[Former Member]

Hi Eli,

Thanks for the response.

It seem to me there is a configuration mix up some where. No body tampered with the configuration you mentioned. I checked the information system configuration. There was no configurtion to start with. After the checking the check-box, there is still no change. The system still behaves thesame. I ran a version comparism and all expenditures and revenues still have have negative signs.

What is even more interesiting is the fact that revenues postings instead behave the way i expect expenditures to behave, albeit with with the negative sign.

Revenue Behaviour: Category 2

Consumable Budget: - 10,000

Consumed Budget: - 1,000

Available Amount: - 9000

Expenditure Behaviour: Category 3

Consumable Budget: - 10,000

Consumable Behavious: 1000 (Without a minus sign)

Available amount; - 11,000 (completely misleading)

To Start with, is there a possibility to completely avoid the negative sign in the report? i will prefer a situation where all the figures are just descrete (+ve sign) in the report. Eventhough Expenditures are expected to reduce the budget, revenues on the other hand are not expected to increas the budget.

Please if you have any clue where i can effect this configurations i will be very grateful.

The client is running out of patience.

Thanks in anticipation.

Cheers,

Anthony

[Former Member]

Hi,

Firstly the computation is not wrong. That report is just a simple RW report. The report definition shows that the 3rd column (Available Amount) = 1st column (Cosumable Budget) - 2nd column (Consumed Budget). In your case, it is -100,000,000 - 15,000,000 = -115,000,000. Secondly, you said you use FMCYLOAD to generate budget. Did you generate it from plan data? If so, does your plan data have a negative sign? Thirdly, if your planned expenses are negative and you use FMCYLOAD to convert them to the budget, the 1st column of the report, which pulls data from ledger 9F record type 1 will show negative. However the 2nd column, pulling data from ledger 9F record type 0 is actually showing your commitments/actuals which in most cases are positive.

This is not a reporting issue. What you need to do is to fix the budget data.

Regards,

Ming

[Former Member]

Hello Ji,

Thanks very much for your response. It was quite helpful. I changed all the expenditures values in the excel sheet to -ve when loading the planning data using FMPLUP. I then generated the Budget Data from Planning Data using FMCYLOAD and the analysis was a refelction of what i thought. However, this seems to be a very laborious processes. For every set of expenditure commitment items that you want to load you must change all the values to negative. I must have made a wrong customization somewhere.

Thanks and Cheers,

Anthony

[Former Member]

Thanks all for the assistance.