Strange BC variable behaviour

[Steve King]

Jer,

That Proc Op is there mainly for Job Cost shops where they use Inception-to-Date numbers, i.e., from the beginning of time, as opposed to the usual which for P&L accounts when they say Year-to-Date they really mean just the current year's total. On Balance Sheet accounts Year-to-Date and Inception-to-Date are the same.

It sounds like you have a Header Account that is set to allow Posting. This is considered a no-no in a good COA set-up because it means that at higher reporting LODs the F0911s for the Header Account don't balance to the F0902s. It's also a bad idea because of the problem you've encountered.

 

[JMast]

Steve,

If by Header records you mean LOD5, you are correct. I am learning that we have just about every combination of scenarios (good, bad and ugly) in our COA. For example, I discovered this morning that one issue is that the 7340 LOD 5 account which was missing the FY 11 F0902 record that I have been referencing in this case actually is marked inactive while the 7340.1 and 7340.2 are active. The explanation for marking it inactive is exactly what you are refering to: "so no one posts to that account anymore since the SUBs have been created".

If you can, please give me a little more detail on [ QUOTE ]
it means that at higher reporting LODs the F0911s for the Header Account don't balance to the F0902s.

[/ QUOTE ] I am not sure I understand how the F0911s could be out of balance with the F0902s.

I don't imagine we have things that are out of balance since our accountant is very good at tracking things and tying things out from multiple reports and on a frequent basis. However, if there is a possibility of things being out of balance, we need to take a look and that could give me some ammo to convince people we need an overhaul.

We are a very small (too small for Oracle's cost structure, since we bought through JDE Genesis) company that has the usual 'no budget for consultant' issues and resistance to change found in many small companies.

Thanks for thie insight,

Jer

 

[peterbruce]

Jer,

For roll-up accounts the Post Edit Code in the F0901 (F0901.GMPEC) should be "N" for Non Posting Account. The values for this are in UDC H00/PE.

 

[JMast]

Thanks for the info, Peter. Unfortunately, that doesn't work when you have past activity posted against the account. JDE rejects the N. So, they are painted into a corner with a few of these LOD 5 accounts since N is not allowed and I will prevent the record from being created for next year. They will just have to be sure they don't post to the LOD 5 by accident.

Another intersting loop in this story (tragedy

) is that accounts that are in the F0901 but have no records in the F0902 at all will still work as roll up accounts. I ma betting this is due to the V8300001 using outer join. So, once you enter a record in F0902, you have to keep entering them for each new year or they will eventually fail.

The good news is there were only 4 accounts that were at risk or wrecked, so we should be ok for now. She has detailed notes in her year end processes to watch for missing accounts in the new income statement and we know how to fix it.

Thank you to all of you for your great help on this situation.

Jer

Jer

 

[peterbruce]

Jer,

This is what you are probably doing now (I post this for future readers of this thread): You could mark the accounts in question as "I" (inactive) and then get your accountant to add to her year end processes to change the "I" to a blank (posting), for the accounts in question, immediately before running the Annual Close Report (R098201) and changing it back from blank to "I" immediately after the Annual Close has completed.

 

[JMast]

Peter,

Actually, we hadn't thought of that. I will pass it on as an idea.

Thanks again,

Jer

 

[Steve King]

Sorry for the late response. I realized my mistake on the drive home but things have been too crazy for me to get back on.

What I meant to say was that on the report, the "higher level" (or smaller LOD number) posting account will not balance to it's F0902. Because the number on the report will be a combination of both it's F0902 and the "lower level" F0911s.

But, by now you've already figured that out and gone farther. Sorry for the confusion I caused.

 

[JMast]

Ok, that makes sense. I was jsut thinking about the tables not the report.

Thanks again for the help,

Jer

 

[2341]

[ QUOTE ]
Daniel,

1. Yes, setup is complete. The GL Year End UBE,
led strip lighting I forget the name, is run to create records in the F0902 for the new fiscal year and calculate and move beginning balances into those records. It is reading those records since I am seeing the correct dollar amounts on the report (except for the rollup, obviously).

2. We were fortunate that the consultants that helped us go live made those changes at the beginning to 25, so we are good there.

Thanks for the checks.led strip lighting outdoor I a beginning to think this going to 12v led light bars be something small that you would normally overlook.

Jer

[/ QUOTE ]

 

[DBohner-(db)]

I'm going to square off with this poster - and ask, blatantly, please be removed from the list and stop spamming immediately.

Account 2341 is a hack

(db)