FM-BCS and COA definition

[atif_farooq]

Hi :

Are there any consideration to take into account while designing chart of accounts if you have to implement funds management after that..I mean is there any COA structural consideration ? Likewise for CO we will be defining cost centers hierarchy ..Same question stands true for cost center hierarchy as well. Do we need to consider FM before designing Cost centers and their hierarchy. Please guide me..

Regards

[Former Member]

Hi Atif

I would say it is most desirable if Funds management is considered before designing COA & Cost Center/Profit Center/Internal orders etc...mainly because of derivation stratergy.

In case you define a fixed account group in COA as per your Funds Management requirement, it becomes very easy to assign the number range to the commitment item in derivation rule. Derivation rules remains neat.

Otherwise it becomes very difficult to assign single GLs for the commitment item & thus increasing the risk of losing track or missing out some.

In case these account groups are not maintained in COA there is a possibility of wrong Gl creation in groups then there is adverse effect of FM, as Derivation Rule picks wrong CI.

Also Fund Centers would be derived from Cost Center or Profit Center.

So it will be very helpful that the COA & Cost Centers are based on FM requirement.

[iklovski]

I wouldn't say so in 95% of cases, no... FM is secondary, while CoA and  cost centres are primary in most organizations. Only in very special cases FM preceedes (functionaly) other modules and therfore should be considred as a 'trigger' rather than a derivative.

P.S. This is especially right consdireing the flexible tools FM-BCS provides, where the FM objects oculd bederived based on various parameters (not simply on G/L accounts and/or cost centres)

[atif_farooq]

Thanks for the feedback.

Regards