Wednesday, April 5, 2017

No more Xk01 in S/4

First time in the S/4 1610 system. Setting up a Procure to Pay. First place I started to go - good ol XK01 to setup my vendor.









and it is Obsolete...Been nice knowing you !


I get why they merged it into BP. It's all about getting rid of redundancy.

Anyway,  as far as I can tell you can't simply create a vendor for accounting and purchasing in 1 transaction. You have to create the vendor either as a Supplier or a Supplier for Fin. Accounting, and then after you save, go into change mode, select the other BP role, and hit enter.







This blog post helped me get through some issues setting up the vendor. 

https://blogs.sap.com/2017/02/22/business-partner-customer-vendor-integration-s4-hana/

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

How to Understand the Business Benefits of SAP S/4HANA Better

Interesting blog post from Hasso Plattner posted last week. This was in response to feedback from user groups that SMB were not in any hurry to migrate to S/4HANA. It is a bit long, but very informative. Here are the cliff notes from my interpretation:

  • Small and midsize companies (SMB) are struggling to see the benefit of moving to S/4 Hana. The cost to move doesn't justify the business benefits that they see. 
  • Large companies have the funds to move to S/4 Hana. 
  • Hasso advises SMB to watch the early adopters, especially those in their respective industries. 
  • S/4 Hana is an alternative to the Business Suite. SAP will support and develop on ECC for the next 10 years. S/4 will be developed at a faster pace though to accommodate changes in technology. 
  • Hasso disputes the argument that Hardware costs are prohibitive. With S/4 you drastically reduce the amount of data needed, and older data can be stored in Hadoop and retrieved easily if needed. Where you may needed 10TB you now only need 1TB
  • Speed matters. Any field in the table can be in the index and no database admin is needed. Everything is now interactive. Change hierarchies on the fly. Period end reports run in seconds. Decisions are made on the spot with current data. 
  • You can deploy on premise, but the cloud has benefits in that new functionality is deployed right away. You can take advantage of new features without doing the upgrade yourself. SAP offers a trial version in the cloud to help you make the decision. 
  • Hasso disputes that S/4 is only for larger companies. He compares it to the introduction of R/3, which was mainly for SMB to help them reduce the TCO, but that in the beginning of R/3 only larger companies jumped on it . S/4 is geared to provide benefits mostly to SMB. 
  • Simplification: There is a concern from SMB's that they will have to relearn a new system and that will cost time and money. Hasso argues that S/4 is greatly simplified, with simpler screens and a less complicated database. 
  • Hasso recommends a first step to migrate to ECC 6.0. From there, SAP can help migrate to S/4 in the cloud for you . Though S/4 uses Fiori as a new UI, users  have the choice of using the older UI transactions to ease the transition to S/4

Interesting to note, many larger companies I have talked to, do have interest in moving to S/4 but don't want to be the early adopters. The smaller companies I talk to are indeed in no hurry and a few of them are still struggling with their current landscape. Not due to the software, but many small companies when the inexpensive route on their implementation and didn't have the sharpest consultants implement the software. So they aren't getting what they expected out of the current software, and are now paying for higher end consultants to implement fixes. 

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Assigning Scenarios to Ledgers....Not anymore in S/4....

Remember in ECC, you would assign Scenarios to Ledgers? i.e. Segment, Profit Center, maybe Cost center? That's gone. No need anymore, because ACDOCA contains all those fields.

How about Real time integration between FI and CO? Gone - no longer needed. Built in . Why? Because CO is posted to the same journal entry ledger table as FI, at the same time.

You also don't have to specify the document number range for a local ledger posting. It always uses the leading ledger now.




Documentation here.

Monday, November 2, 2015

SAP's New Asset accounting: Posting with the Accounts Approach

A few posts ago I highlighted the Ledger approach to the New asset accounting. In this post, I will highlight the Accounts Approach:

I set up another company code / Chart of Depreciation with the accounts approach, and once again I created an asset and posted a credit to the vendor, and  debit to the asset.

31  Vendor $4,000
70  Asset $4,000

And the result was 3 transactions:

As in the ledger approach, it posted to the 'Technical Clearing account' 199999. 




















The 2nd document generated posted the asset's APC and offset the Technical clearing account.

The 3rd document generated highlights how the Accounts approach works with New asset accounting:

















I set the ledger group IFS2 to Depreciation area 05. I created another APC account to post to account 160061 rather than 160060 . Keep in mind, Ledger group IFS2 posts to Leading ledger 0L.

With the accounts approach, SAP requires a contra account from the account assignment, in this case, it's 199997 .

As with the old accounts approach, keep in mind you have to set up a new Financial statement version with the correct accounts set up .

















Above is the posting as viewed from one accounting principle (i.e. IFRS).














Above is the posting as viewed from the GAAP accounting principle.

What's going into what tables?

Last week we had a high level discussion with a company that is considering a migration to Simple finance and wanted to know where all those postings were going. The concern was, how would our extracts work if everything is going into the Universal table - both FI and CO? What was happening to Results Analysis postings, Allocations. Does BSEG still exist? etc.

I did a few different postings.

  1. FB60 Invoice
  2. Activity Allocation
  3. RA calculation
FB60: 

Not much different here, except for the obvious - ACDOCA gets posted. 




Activity Allocation: 

The question here was, for a CO only transaction, such as an activity allocation or assessment, what gets posted to ACDOCA? Does BSEG get posted (Answer: No)? 

I set up a simple activity allocation, transferred a few hours from one cost center to another . 

  1. COEP is still posted , as does COBK. 
  2. BSEG does not get posted
  3. ACDOCA does get posted. The secondary cost element is stored in the same field as a regular GL Account would be. 



As you can see the table entries above, ACDOCA not only stores the secondary postings, but also the GL postings (balancing entries). The RACCT stores both primary and secondary. 

ACDOCA does keep track of what kind of posting it is - 






RA Calculation: 

I did a simple RA calculation on a WBS element that had costs post to a Primary Cost element, and at period end you run KKa2 to calculate WIP. The question that was asked, is where do the RA calculations go? 

The simple answer is, they go where they have always gone: COSB. Since they are not really postings, the RA values are calculates and stored on their secondary cost elements and still kept in table COSB. There are no postings to the ACDOCA table. 


Side note: 

When listing documents in FB03 - do we really need this warning message any more with S/4? 






Thursday, October 29, 2015

Goodbye FI12... SAP has taken out the House bank account transaction

SAP has taken away the ability to create a House bank account using the FI12 transaction using the SAP Gui.





Note in the House bank views, you won't find the node anywhere to create the banks. You have to create the accounts using the delivered Fiori app. (EDIT - this was 1503).  In 1610, you go to FI12_HBANK and can create the House Bank there. But not the bank account.




(Must choose the role SAP_SFIN_CASH_MANAGER in SU01 and add it to your user. When I launched this in NWBC I got a blank screen. I googled around and found if I went to SICF and launched the service from there (nwbc_launch is the service) then I got to the screen. I fumbled around here though...)

First, make sure you allow pop ups.









Fixed Assets and the new technical clearing account

Here's something new in New asset accounting ("NAA") :

As has always been the case, up until now, when you post an asset document, it debits the asset, and the asset reconciliation account, and credit whatever the offset is - a vendor, a clearing account, the GR/IR, etc.

Not so in an integrated posting in NAA. The have introduce the 'Technical Clearing' account. It goes like this:

In an integrated posting, SAP posts 2 different journal entries, and uses this 'Technical Clearing account to balance the two out (it should always remain 0) .

For example, I posted the following journal entry:
31 Vendor $1950-
70 Asset / GL Recon 160060 $1950

...and got the below (!):


Keep in mind, this assets reconciliation account points to 160060 . When you display the posting though as shown above, you see this other account being posted - 199999 - or, your 'Technical clearing account. So what's up?


Above is an example I created using the ledger approach - this is the leading ledger view. Although you posted 1 journal entry, it created 2 transactions - an operational (AP) side, and the parallel valuation side , clearing the 199999 account in the process.  Technically in this example, it posted 3 General Ledger documents, and 2 Entry view journal entries. 

Click on the 'Accounting Principle' in the upper left corner and choose IFRS now, and you get the below: 


Note that above posts a separate accounting document but to the other ledger setup. The 19000007 document posts both FP and 0L - so there is no specific ledger group tied to that operational posting. 

SAP is dividing the operational posting from the accounting principle. The invoice of $1,950.00 to the vendor is independent of the accounting principal involved in how the asset is capitalized. 

....Again, SAP offers two methods to different parallel valuations. The above is the ledger approach
If you wanted to use the account based approach, the results would be similar, but your parallel area would post to a different APC account , and the parallel valuation posting created, would post an offset using the 'Contra' account to keep everything in balance. I will illustrate the accounts based concept in NAA in another post. 

Post any questions you may have on the setup.