 Part 1 of this article can be found here. 7. Create Journal Line Types
N > Custom Responsibility > Subledger Accounting Setups > Accounting Methods Builder > Journal Entry Setups > Journal Line Types
Again I’m not using any clever options. The only things to note: I’ve set up a Debit Journal Line Type and set Switch Debit/Credit = Yes. Not using any conditions and haven’t updated the Accounting Attribute Assignments on Journal Line Type level.
8. Create Account Derivation Rule
N > Custom Responsibility > Subledger Accounting Setups > Accounting Methods Builder > Journal Entry Setups > Account Derivation Rules
Here I’ll just make up some random stuff.
This is an Account Derivation Rule which populates the entire accounting flexfield with a constant value:
This is an Account Derivation Rule which populates the Cost Center segment with a value directly inherited from the Source system.
And this is an Account Derivation Rule which derives the Account segment while making use of a Mapping Set:
While this is the Mapping Set used in the above Account Derivation Rule.
Note that in the Account Derivation rule you have the flexibility to set up a hierarchy of rules each to which you can tie conditions, something which I didn’t do in this example.
9. Create Journal Lines Definitions
N > Custom Responsibility > Subledger Accounting Setups > Accounting Methods Builder > Methods and Definitions > Journal Lines Definitions
The Journal Lines Definitions is where we bring things together and tie Journal Line Type(s) to Account Derivation Rules.
Note how I’ve used the “All Segments” Account Derivation Rule to first populate my accounting flexfield with my default account combination. This technique ensures that all my segments will be populated. Then the subsequent Account Derivation Rules will be evaluated and if a value can be derived from those Account Derivation Rules, then that value will override the individual segment value from my default Account Derivation Rule.
10. Create Application Accounting Definition
N > Custom Responsibility > Subledger Accounting Setups > Accounting Methods Builder > Methods and Definitions > Application Accounting Definitions
Here you tie the Event Type to the Journal Lines Definition. Click the [Validate] button to confirm your setup is complete.
11. Create Subledger Accounting Method
N > Custom Responsibility > Subledger Accounting Setups > Accounting Methods Builder > Methods and Definitions > Subledger Accounting Methods
In the final step we attach the Application Accounting Definition to the Subledger Accounting Method. The Subledger Accounting Method is tied to your ledger.
To complete the circle: in the introduction I said you will need to call the create event API. One of the API input parameters is the ledger_id. The ledger you use there should be a ledger which is using this Subledger Accounting Method.
And that’s it. Now you’re ready to create accounting. From here on you can start exploring all the other functionality FAH has to offer.
Hopefully this has been of use to you, but if you managed to read all the way up until here then I guess it has. Have fun playing around, and be careful ;-)
|
Comments
We are encountering issues with create accounting in SLA. (1) When create accounting was run in multiple threads in final mode - some of t he events were not picked up and journals were not created. but ,later when we ran create accounting again - those events were picked up.
(2) Some of the journals originally created in 'Draft' mode remain in 'Draft mode' when we ran create accounting in 'Final Mode' for those events?
(3) Have you come across any issues in create accounting program if we run for millions of events?
Thank You
1) What's the status of those unaccounted events after the first run? Are they still 'U' (Unprocessed)? Any message on the Create Accounting output? Do you see the events being picked up in the FND Debug log? Can you reproduce this at will?
2) Was Create Accounting submitted with the exact same parameters (except the Draft vs. Final)?
3) Millions of events in a single run should not be a problem. Performance will depend of course on hardware, DBA tuning and... your AAD setup.
Issues I've seen are:
- undo_tablespace not set to deal with the volumes (you will get a clear message in Create Accounting output when that happens).
- don't submit detailed report when creating accounting for millions of events (makes no sense doing that).
Regards,
Sven
(1) Once we up the SGA_TARGET_SIZE , all the 3 million were picked up by create accounting process. Looks like some child processes failed because of smaller SGA size
(2) It takes about 2 hours to process 3 million events by create accounting process( 3 million journals - with 6 million lines ). We have set the Create Accounting processes/Unit size – 40/25K. ( transfer to GL and post to GL - NO , detailed reports -NO ) We are still playing around process/unit setting to get an optimal numbers. Do you have any suggestions? . Can you share your experience Please.
Thank You,
Rajendran
I can't add anything to what you've already been told in the SR. But I'm just copying the reply from Development here, for the benefit of others:
There is no generic formula. It’s a hit and miss with regards to what is the data volume in each run and what is the data distribution in each run.
Key things to consider:
a) Look at the count of ENTITIES not EVENTS. So if there are 10000 events but 7000 entities (i.e., unique documents), then the splitting happens of the 7000 entities across the different workers. All events of an entity within a processing order (invoices have a higher order than payments and payments have a higher order than reconciled payments etc.) are processed by 1 worker
b) Another reason why there cannot be a generic formula is the time for processing 10 events of 2 distributions is very different from processing 10 events of 100 distributions each.
c) Number of workers should be less than the number of concurrent manager slots available
Do you happen to have (or know anyone who has) a sample project workplan for implementing FAH? If you do could you forward to me?
Thanks,
Kevin
How do you handle reversals in FAH assuming Create Accounting has been run in Draft mode (unposted to GL).
Thanks
Thanks for your positive feedback.
Re. reversals: What exactly would you like to achieve?
Draft accounting entries will automatically be replaced by new accounting entries next time you process these events, so no need to set up reversals here. Or are you aiming for something else?
Regards,
Sven
1. Assume errors are discovered in the whole batch load of source system transaction lines that have been loaded into the transaction objects (lines and headers). Also assume Create & Assign Sources, Create Events has been run. How do you reverse this?
2. Assume the same as above and Create Accounting in Final and Post mode has been run. Is the only option to do a reversal in GL?
I also have this question:
Do you have or know someone who has a sample detailed project workplan for implementing FAH? Do you have a BR100 for FAH configuration?
Thanks,
Kevin
These are a number of specific things, so I’ll try to be specific as well :-)
1 a) First of, Create and Assign Sources is a setup step which creates Sources within FAH based on the columns from your Transaction Object(s). It does not create any transaction-related data within any of the FAH tables.
If you have created a Source which afterwards you feel should not have been created (and so should not have been part of the Transaction Object(s) in the first place), then you can alter your Transaction Object / view by removing the column from the view and synchronize FAH by deleting the Source from both the Sources and Source Assignments windows (through the form, NOT by using a script).
1 b) If Create Events has been run and you need to undo this, then you can use the delete events API for this purpose.
2. Source system(s) and GL need to be kept in sync, so reversing in GL only is not advised. If the data presented by the source system was wrong, but did get processed, then ideally the correction should be made in the source system, and FAH Accounting Reversal functionality can be used to help account for this.
However, I would try to make sure that if the data generated by the source system is wrong/invalid, this gets trapped by your accounting rules f.i. when using a mapping set against invalid source data, the mapping set won’t find a match between source data and mapping set input value. In such a case, I wouldn't specify a default value in your rules; then the accounting program automatically raises an error and prevents the wrong data from being processed any further.
In a worst case scenario where the data got processed but was completely wrong and can’t be corrected in the source system(?), I suggest logging a SR to get a datafix.
Hope that helps.
Regards,
Sven
Regards,
Kevin
Our client has the following question related to FAH application registrations and responsibilities:
Our client is thinking of creating/registering about 25 FAH applications for 25 source systems to be interfaced to R12 GL. However the client wants to be able to have one responsibility maintain the accounting rules definitions (JED, JLT, ADR, JLD, AAD) for all the 25 FAH applications. We understand that several accounting rules components can be shared across applications. However the client does not want to create and login with 25 responsibilities for the 25 source systems or 25 FAH applications.
(Please note that the client wants to be able to see each of the 25 source systems individually in GL prompts)
Given the scenario above, is it possible to assign or register multiple FAH applications for one responsibility?
If not, what are the options that may help resolve the multiple applications?
Thanks,
Kevin
I touched upon this topic earlier on in the following article:
http://oraclecs.com/financials-accounting-hub-sharing-accounting-rules.html
(please also note the comments section where user ‘denzilp’ shared some interesting experiences)
To answer your question:
A single responsibility is tied to a single FAH application. So a responsibility can’t provide access to multiple FAH applications. But you can of course create a single FAH application/responsibility under which you store the accounting rules for all 25 source systems.
Some considerations:
- Using a single FAH application for 25 source systems allows sharing accounting rules across those 25 source systems. When grouping all the rules under a single FAH application, think about a very good and clear naming convention for all your accounting rules components. Some components might be exclusive to a single source system, while others might be shared.
- GL Journal Source is mapped to the FAH application level. So when using a single FAH application, all data of the 25 source systems will be presented to GL under this single Journal Source, while when using 25 FAH applications, you would see 25 separate Journal Sources in GL, each one referring to the relevant source system. When using a single FAH application (and therefore a single GL Journal Source), you could make use of Journal Category to make a lower level distinction between source systems. Which brings me to the next point:
- Journal Category is mapped to the FAH Event Class level. The event model consists of three levels (Event Entity > Event Class > Event Type) and these all exist within the context of a FAH application. So in effect there are four levels available when setting up your event hierarchy: FAH application > Event Entity > Event Class > Event Type. Using a single FAH application for the 25 source systems will leave less room for maneuvering within the event hierarchy, as you will at least use 25 Event Classes – because at Event Class level we link the Transaction Objects (views from which the source data will be accessed) and there will be at least 25 different tables in which the source data resides, so 25 Event Classes.
My point here is that you would be bringing the source system down to the Event Class level which only leaves you with the Event Type level to make a lower level distinction. This might be OK, but also compare it to the other scenario (25 FAH applications) where you would still have 3 lower levels available for each application/source system.
This is assuming you’re connecting the source systems directly to FAH. Another implementation option is to have the source systems provide the data to an Operational Data Store or Data Warehouse and then connect FAH to this ODS or DWH. In such a case all data could potentially be presented to FAH within a common structure/table/view.
- A final but important point to consider is the size of the Application Accounting Definition (AAD) package. Using a single FAH application for the 25 source systems means all accounting rules will be grouped under a single AAD and therefore the underlying package containing the SQL code might become very large. This “might” depends on how efficient the rules are set up, and this is the crucial part which requires FAH implementation experience.
The technical downsides of using an extremely large AAD are performance related: compiling the package could take longer, and the Accounting Program might need more time to complete as there’s more SQL it will need to go through. Submitting Create Accounting per Process Category (= Event Class) could help with this last point though.
Also note from the above that changing a rule for one of the source systems would mean that all the rules for all the source systems would need to be revalidated, because validation is done at AAD level, so the application level.
Most FAH customers are using multiple FAH applications/responsibilities. I only know of one customer case where they successfully grouped all their rules under a single FAH application/responsibility. So it’s possible, but not as easy and straightforward compared to using multiple FAH applications.
Hopefully the above will assist you in making the best decision for your client.
Regards,
Sven
Thank you so much for your comments and clear explanations. I will advise my client accordingly especially since most FAH customers use multiple FAH applications/responsibilities.
As a side note, what would the implications be for security if all the 25 applications use one FAH application/responsibility?
Thanks,
Kevin
Then this single FAH responsibility will provide access to all the accounting rules for all 25 source systems.
While when using multiple responsibilities, you could still provide User A with access to all the rules (by assigning all responsibilities to User A), but if User A should only be allowed access to the rules of source systems X, Y, Z, then you can assign just those responsibilities to User A.
Regards,
Sven
The difference can be within the Transaction Objects, as a transaction from a source system might be presented by a header and a line transaction object (so similar to the journal pass-through example which I provided), but it might also be that the source transaction is presented by a header Transaction Object only. In such a case you can set up multiple Journal Line Types within a single Journal Lines Definition in order to ‘explode’ the single line from the source system into two or multiple accounting entry lines.
Regards,
Sven
Thanks for putting together a nice article on FAH, where little is know and provided to read about FAH.
I am trying to stuck in creating a hypothetical payables system. I have created the Account Derivation rule with multiple options of constant and segment, flexfield and constant code combination. but no luck in making it populated in the journal line definition form in "Rule Name" field. The form says LOV contains no entries.
What is going on at this stage, how can I fix this? Please help me complete project of mine.
Are you using a Chart of Accounts on the ADR? If yes, then also use this Chart of Accounts on the JLD level.
Regards,
Sven
Our client is exploring best practices around automated maintenance of FAH Accounting Rules using the AAD Loader. Basically, our client would like to import, update, or inactivate existing AAD rules for JED, JLT, ADR, Mapping Sets, and Supporting References using the AAD Loader concurrent programs. We have the following questions:
1. What are the pros/cons of using the AAD Loader/Ldt files especially within the context of overwrite, merge, and merge analysis options?
2. Are there any other suggested automated alternatives to importing/updating/inactivating these AAD rules?
Thanks,
Kevin
Can’t really come up with pros/cons. The only seeded way to automate import/export of rules is indeed by using the seeded concurrent programs.
I believe there’s one customer who has built a workflow approval process for this.
Regards,
Sven
I have one additional question.
3. It appears that the AAD Loader .ldt files only has a reference to a mapping set (it does not contain the values of the mapping set).
Currently we manually add new rows or update existing rows using the AMB user interface. We also use DataLoad to add new rows.
Is it possible to import and update values into the ADR mapping set using an API or spreadsheet? If no, then are there other alternatives?
Regards,
Kevin
This is because Mapping Sets are application-independent, so a single Mapping Set can be used within various AADs.
There’s currently no seeded alternative available. For the initial load, we often use a custom build loader which allows importing the mapping set values from excel > to csv file > to custom table > to mapping set form.
Regards,
Sven
My company is looking at implementing FAH in order to intergrate our leagacy system's GL with Oracle.
We have one system to map, but many transactions types, maybe up to 100.
Can anyone give me a "guess" on the functional and technical hours that may be required for such an undertaking?
Thanks,
-Chris
Not really a direct reply to your question, but just some overall advice:
A common mistake is that each “Transaction Type” is set up as a separate event within FAH, and then for each event also a separate Journal Lines Definition is build. This can completely blow up the FAH configuration, make it harder to maintain, and adversely impact performance. Therefore the transaction types from the source system first need to be analyzed from an accounting/FAH perspective so they can be logically grouped together. As you mention the source system is a legacy GL system, all the transaction types could likely be grouped under just a single FAH event.
Regards,
Sven
Thank You Very Much for the article and the explanatory replies to the different questions:
I have some questions about FAH(FSAH) setting. Could you please clariffy
1.Can FAH create journal entry for adjustment period?
(When I input GL_Date(API or TX_Object),
Period name derived from the accounting date autmatically in "XLAGLTRN".)
2.Where can I set Rounding rule of Rounding Class?
(In "Journal Line Types" panel,
we can select 'Accounting class' and 'Rounding Class'.
where can I check Actual calculation method(rounding rule)?)
Thanks
Rajesh
1.FAH only handles accounting which relates to subledger transactions, therefore FAH doesn't allow the use of adjustment periods. Adjustment periods only exist, and can only be used in GL.
2. I don’t have any info on how the rounding calculation works. But there is no setting in FAH which further controls this.
Regards,
Sven
We need to create state entries via FAH. Im assuming if I create an Event where the currency is Stat that SLA will create the State Journal and that it will not need to be balanced.
Any feedback is appreciated.
-Chris
Thanks in advance,
Kerrilynn
No, FAH is only available from R12 onwards.
Regards,
Sven
Quickly Update Accounting Rules to Meet New Requirements
Changes in accounting regulations or corporate structures are quickly accommodated with effective dating of rules. The dates of inbound events are used to determine how to create accounting.
Is there a way to maintain effective dating of rules?
Please pardon me for posting such a long mail :) If you could help me address these concerns, we would really appreciate it.
This is regarding Financial Accounting Hub implementation for an Investment Company. There is a requirement (details mentioned below) at my client site wherein they wish to evaluate 'Currency' as a segment in their Chart of Accounts structure.
Requirement:-
There are two source systems wherein all transactions are already accounted for; henceforth, we have suggested a 'pass-through' approach to the client. The scenario is that, these source systems have transactions (in different Quotation currencies for each Investment they make) which needs to be captured in Corporate General Ledger financial reports (in Balance Sheet, the client wishes to have columns for Currencies to which the Investment has been exposed, along with functional currency, USD balances).
Am seeking your help/insights on the following points:-
- What could be repercussions of having 'Currency' as a segment in Chart of Accounts.
- Can we capture static*** (additional) information from these source systems in 'Supporting References' and could we generate reports for the same (I mean, there is standard functionality in FAH to attach supporting reference to the journal lines; having said that, could we capture the balances of 'Supp. Refs.' in any report).
- What are the pros and cons of having Multiple General Ledgers and finally consolidating them into one ledger. What is the best practice followed in the industry?
- Pros and cons of having single Chart of Accounts and Multiple Chart of Accounts.
- Which reporting tool could be used for developing Financial Reports (like B/S, P&L, Cash Flows) and monthly reports (like reports as per static/additional data)?
I would appreciate if any document/insights pertaining to the same could be shared. Also, if any requirement definition document (RD50) , for a Financial/Investment Company (*which invests its Govt.'s surpluses into asset classes across the world).
***Statics Data in our case, for instance, there is an accounting entry Marketable Securities Dr 1000, To Bank Cr 1000. Other than that, there is static information, like Portfolio Region, Portfolio Currency, Portfolio Dept., etc. linked to this accounting entry.
Thanks in advance.
Pranay.
I want to import data from AP, AR & GL of external legacy systems. Can you please tell me the ways to do it?
How will FAH help in this case?
Regards,
Nikhil