One of the blessings in Payables R12 is the possibility to create online accounting.This allows the user to enter invoices and payments and post the accounting immediately in General Ledger. I found out that unexpected behaviour of this process can cause (temporarily of course after reading this post) a reconciliation difference.

Draft accounting can be corrected by changing the transaction and create the draft accounting again. Final Post creates accounting and transfers the journals to General Ledger, and posts the journal batch. But what is Final actually doing ? There are a few possible options:

• Same as Draft (only accounting in Subledger Accounting) but no possibility to rerun accounting again
• Create accounting in Subledger Accounting and GL Interface
• Create accounting in Subledger Accounting, GL Interface and create an Unposted Journal

The right answer is ... Same as Draft (only accounting in Subledger Accounting) but no possibility to rerun accounting again !

This leads to the next question: how do we transfer the journal entries from Subledger Accounting to General Ledger ? Again a few options:

• Create online accounting again, using Final Post
• Run Create Accounting concurrent request
• Open the journal entry in Subledger Accounting and process manually

The right answer is ... none of these ! There is a seperate concurrent program called 'Transfer Journal Entries to GL' in Payables. This process picks up all Subledger accounting entries that are not yet transfered to GL.

For me this was an unpleasant surprise, I was hoping that the Create Accounting concurrent program would pickup these accounting lines as well. This concurrent program has a parameter 'Transfer to GL', but this will transfer only the accounting created by the corresponding run!

Reference: Metalink Note 459002.1

Conclusion

So in R12 we still don't have a robust accounting process that always works! Remember in 11i we had the Payables Accounting Process, with the same behaviour. In a situation where all the Payables Accounting was created online, the Payables Acccounting Process could not find something to process, hence the Payables Transfer to GL was not spawned. So running the Payables Accounting Process was not a 100% guarantee that all journals in AP were processed, and now we have more or less the same situation in R12. We may need to run a second concurrent request in some circumstances, which is not convenient during Period Close.

What do you think: is there any added value for the option of creating Final accounting only ?

Comments

Sven van Leemput

0

 

 

Not sure about the added value either. Perhaps looking at it from an AIA perspective it might be useful when you need to integrate EBS subledgers with a non-EBS GL because in that case only “Draft” and “Final” would be viable options.

Actually I’m not sure about the added value of this STP accounting altogether. Sure it’s nice being able to show in a sales demo that EBS offers STP accounting but I’m not convinced a user would really need to make use of it.

Regarding the robustness of the AP accounting process: one option could be to only allow users to run Create Accounting as part of a Request Set consisting of Create Accounting and Transfer Journal Entries to GL. By making sure Transfer Journal Entries to GL is not directly spawned by Create Accounting you would guarantee that all records are picked up regardless if they were created online or in batch mode.

Regards
Sven

Wednesday 17 December 2008, 01:37

wilbert poeliejoe

0

 

 

Although the titel of the article might make you think that this only happens when online create accounting is used, this issue also happens when running the "create accounting" request with parameters "Final" and transfer to GL set to "No".
Which report will able to identify those accounted but not transferred invoices?

Monday 26 January 2009, 12:24

Please login to post comments or replies.