on 10-10-2015 9:14 PM
Hello!
Need assistance in following case:
Now system posts documents only if we customize subassignments for differential items directly in method on "Other differences tab" or requires "default indicator for the differential item". Both settings do not suite to clients requirements.
Example:
Report data
Company | Item | Partner | Subas1 | Subas2 | Subas3 | Sum |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
01 | 11 | 02 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 100 |
02 | 22 | 01 | 0 | 1 | 2 | -90 |
Client wants to get following result AFTER elimination -
Company | Item | Partner | Subas1 | Subas2 | Subas3 | Sum |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
01 | 11 | 02 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 10=100-90 |
02 | 22 | 01 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0=-90+90 |
What we tried to do:
IE Posting with direct assignment (all Subas=1) - incorrect result because of subas for difference:
Company | Item | Partner | Subas1 | Subas2 | Subas3 | Sum |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
01 | 11 | 02 | 1 | 2 | 0 | -100 |
02 | 22 | 01 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 90 |
01 | 11 | 02 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 |
IE Posting with "default indicator for the differential item" creates 2 more rows with subassignments (for each unique combination) - incorrect result - too complicated and result is awful:
Company | Item | Partner | Subas1 | Subas2 | Subas3 | Sum |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
01 | 11 | 02 | 1 | 2 | 0 | -100 |
02 | 22 | 01 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 90 |
01 | 22 | 01 | 0 | 1 | 2 | -90 |
02 | 11 | 02 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 100 |
Please, help!
Maybe there is other possibility to customize Two-Sided Elimination in order to get appropriate results after elimination (look at what Client wants tab)? Is it possible to eliminate same values for Debit and Credit items (=90), otherwise report data (100 and 90)?
Please, help!
Hi,
Maybe I didn't understand the situation, but in my opinion there is no need in reclass or custom task.
The problem in question might be solved just by standard means of 2-sided elimination.
I have no system at hand now. But remember that in configuration of IUE there is a strategy of attributing the difference. Attribute the difference to the unit with the bigger (absolute value) value. It works just perfectly.
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Hello, Marina,
Apparently, that you didn't try what I suggested. Assigning an ITEM for difference might be ANY, direct or original. Whatever business wants. It doesn't matter.
BUT how the difference is calculated, which amounts are cleared and which remains; to which CU it assigned, depend on strategy of attributing the difference. As I wrote before.
Strategy for Posting Differences - Business Consolidation (SEM-BCS) - SAP Library
I*ve tried what you have mentioned, system posts two different sum for each item (sum that came in report data). In my example -100 and +90 (difference doesn*t mater because of setting). What client wants: sum -90 and +90. We thought we can do this using difference settings but couldn*t set up subassignments. May be there is another way to set up -90 and +90 elimination?
Ok. let's see how it really works.
Your Report data
Company | Item | Partner | Subas1 | Subas2 | Subas3 | Sum |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
01 | 11 | 02 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 100 |
02 | 22 | 01 | 0 | 1 | 2 | -90 |
The system finds the amount of pair of CU. Summ their amounts: 100 - 90.
Storno all amounts, for both CU
01 | 11 | 02 | 1 | 2 | 0 | -100 |
02 | 22 | 01 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 90 |
And the difference 10 place to the CU with the bigger amount:
Company | Item | Partner | Subas1 | Subas2 | Subas3 | Sum |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
01 | 11 | 02 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 10 |
As a result, we eliminated the common liability (or whatever) 90 and -90. And left 10 on the Company 1.
And you said 10 is immaterial.
SAP often don't do exaclty entries the client wants. You need to convince them in it. The main things - the result is correct. And it doesn't require any reclasses or BAdIs.
I can not set up system the way you mentioned here - system does not post difference such way. It requires setting for subassignments - as I mentioned. 10 matters - I wrote difference doesn*t matter because of your advice for settings Assigning an ITEM for difference might be ANY, direct or original. Whatever business wants. It doesn't matter
Problem for this 10 difference is subassignments - they do nor derive from unit with bigger value or else. System requires setting - *default* value or direct assignment. We need system to post difference using item and assignments from report data ( as you wrote in example) but we could not set it up so.
The eliminations are intended to initially eliminate the reported and standardized data and subsequently post the difference as defined in the configuration, hence the multiple lines.
The only suggestion I can make, is to have a subsequent reclassification or replace the elimination with a reclassification to get the desired results.
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
It is not necessary to configure individual sets of cons unit/partner unit combinations. Simply include sets of cons units, partner units and items as the triggers, leave the source blank and the trigger will be inherited as the source, and the target is the difference item.
If possible, use the posting level 20 elimination document type to ensure the reclassification is recognized by the consolidation logic as an elimination for reporting.
Dan, thanks! But when I set up reclass task as you adviced, system posts document only in 1 cons unit - no elimination is performed in partner unit. Also, subassignments are derived from default values maintained in system settings (no flag is set). Though we need them to be derived from source.
May be I don*t set up all settings of reclass task correctly?
leave the source and target subassignments blank and select the default check-box. This will derive the subassignments from the trigger.
If both partners have accounted for their side of the transaction there should be separate postings for each that will eliminate the balances as needed. If not, then an additional step may be needed for the partner unit as trigger and the corresponding cons unit must be the inherited value for the source and target.
Good morning! Still can not set up correct elimination. I need two sided elimination logic - system must find two correlated sum and post document to eliminate the one that is less but in two companies at one time. Reclass gives me postings in the same unit but with item from partner company. One's more my situation:
Report data
Company | Item | Partner | Subas1 | Subas2 | Subas3 | Sum |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
01 | 11 | 02 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 100 |
02 | 22 | 01 | 0 | 1 | 2 | -90 |
Document that I need:
Company | Item | Partner | Subas1 | Subas2 | Subas3 | Sum |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
01 | 11 | 02 | 1 | 2 | 0 | -90 |
02 | 22 | 01 | 0 | 1 | 2 | +90 |
Thank you!
Try the BADi mentioned in the SAP help for BCS custom task:
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_erp60_sp/helpdata/en/5c/a1b142c444c96ae10000000a155106/content.htm
Hi colleagues! We’ve decided to set up custom task for resolution of our problem. First we search for two sided records and then create desired documents for elimination. New records (documents) we want to save in custom table in backend, then upload them into consolidation using Load from Data Stream. Here we face another problem: system allows to choose only Document types for posting levels 01, 02, 10, 12 in Method definition. I’ve searched for couple linked topics here and it seems that there should be a possibility to load document types PL20 from data streams (http://help.sap.com/erp2005_ehp_04/helpdata/en/48/5f0e6d8ea2350ce10000000a42189d/content.htm). May be I should set up smth special in system to implement this option?
System version SEM-BW 604 SAPK-60407INSEMBW.
Thank you!
User | Count |
---|---|
7 | |
4 | |
3 | |
2 | |
2 | |
1 | |
1 | |
1 | |
1 | |
1 |
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.