Anyone wondering why in CA PPM, one can only use GL Accounts when using Chargebacks?  And then, why only on a % allocation basis?

Generally, in the financial world that I live in and read about, transactions are recorded with the GL Account ID to be debited/credited.  This doesn't happen in CA PPM - looking at transactions in PPA_WIP, I see no GL Account/sub-account IDs or any kind of ID that might link to a GL Account/subaccount in another table.  The only time I see GL Account referenced is on the subject of Chargebacks, where portions of project's total costs can be allocated to different GL Accounts.

We are being tasked to track software development costs and would like to do this in such a manner that our GL Accounts and Subaccounts could be used.  Within one project, resources will work on tasks that develop one type of software, and other tasks which develop a different type of software.

GL Account:  Software Development

     Sub Account:  Type A

     Sub Account:  Type B

Also, external purchases will be made with our ERP systems, where GL Account\Subaccounts can be identified on the purchase req's (transaction based).  We'd like to import these into Clarity, and then report project transaction costs according to these GL Accounts.  We'd also like to develop forecasts/budgets using these GL Accounts\Sub-Accounts so that we can identify how much Type A work we have coming vs. Type B.

Charge Codes will have to be used - they exist on tasks, are recorded in transactions and also exist in financial plans for forecasting/budgeting purposes.

Except that our ERP systems don't have Charge Code - they all work with GL accounts/subaccounts.at a transaction level.  The finance people ask "What's a charge code?"  And Charge Codes don't have sub-Charge Codes.

Just wondering what accounting books were used to design the GL features in Clarity, whether anyone else faces similar questions and also if there are any changes to CA PPM coming that might better align with standard account principles.  If anyone faces similar issues, are you using the Charge Code as a workaround or something else?

Or, am I just missing something?  (I don't think so!  But willing to be told I'm wrong...)

Does anyone have any feedback for Dale?

GL Accounts in CA PPM - general questions

This question is Not Answered.(Mark as assumed answered)

Dale Stockman Feb 18, 2015 5:11 PM

Anyone wondering why in CA PPM, one can only use GL Accounts when using Chargebacks?  And then, why only on a % allocation basis?

Generally, in the financial world that I live in and read about, transactions are recorded with the GL Account ID to be debited/credited.  This doesn't happen in CA PPM - looking at transactions in PPA_WIP, I see no GL Account/sub-account IDs or any kind of ID that might link to a GL Account/subaccount in another table.  The only time I see GL Account referenced is on the subject of Chargebacks, where portions of project's total costs can be allocated to different GL Accounts.

We are being tasked to track software development costs and would like to do this in such a manner that our GL Accounts and Subaccounts could be used.  Within one project, resources will work on tasks that develop one type of software, and other tasks which develop a different type of software.

GL Account:  Software Development

     Sub Account:  Type A

     Sub Account:  Type B

Also, external purchases will be made with our ERP systems, where GL Account\Subaccounts can be identified on the purchase req's (transaction based).  We'd like to import these into Clarity, and then report project transaction costs according to these GL Accounts.  We'd also like to develop forecasts/budgets using these GL Accounts\Sub-Accounts so that we can identify how much Type A work we have coming vs. Type B.

Charge Codes will have to be used - they exist on tasks, are recorded in transactions and also exist in financial plans for forecasting/budgeting purposes.

Except that our ERP systems don't have Charge Code - they all work with GL accounts/subaccounts.at a transaction level.  The finance people ask "What's a charge code?"  And Charge Codes don't have sub-Charge Codes.

Just wondering what accounting books were used to design the GL features in Clarity, whether anyone else faces similar questions and also if there are any changes to CA PPM coming that might better align with standard account principles.  If anyone faces similar issues, are you using the Charge Code as a workaround or something else?

Or, am I just missing something?  (I don't think so!  But willing to be told I'm wrong...)

Hi,

Just a Thought.

You can use Resources (expense) and transaction class to upload the GL transactions.Transaction class can be created like Software Development -Type A,Software Development -Type B. Create Expense Resources and map them to transaction class.Then you can Forecasting / Budget use this transaction classes.

The expense resources will be used for uploading the transactions from ERP.If Expense resources is mapped with transclass(Resource Financial Properties) then in the Forecasting you can use the transclass to group by.The same can be used for Labour Resources who input timesheet against this tasks.

In Reporting you can build at GL account level-Software Development or at an sub account level (TYPE A,TYPE B).

Cheers,

Sundar

Hi Dale

Don't know if you've got the answer from somewhere else by now but here's my insight.

CA PPM does actually respect our good old accounting world of debits and credits :-)   Your debits are defined within the investment as you mentioned or you may have system wide standard rules that you may want to map to e.g. set up a set of rules that 30 investments may apply to so that you do not need to set up the same rules in 30 investments.  The credit side of the transactions are defined within the 'Credit Rules' link. 

You have a number of attributes that you can use to map your transactions to the correct GL codes in your ERP system when using OOTB chargebacks.

If you plan on writing your own GL posting rules then you have a number of extra attributes that you can use that form part of the transaction record.  These attributes still exist and use to be mandatory and used to be used by a GL posting engine that left the product at version 6.0.13 I think!

Without knowing your financial chart of accounts set up, I would say the natural field to use to map to your main GL account to is the transaction class for starters. The rest of the mapping should follow from here.  Feel free to contact me if you want to discuss further and expand on any question.

"Just wondering what accounting books were used to design the GL features in Clarity".  I would just say that it should fit into any system, it respects standard accounting.  The old GL posting engine was more flexible but the chargeback will also work.  It depends on how simple or complex your rules are.  I have been using financials since 1997(!) before it was  part of Clarity/Niku as a client  and have also been  helping clients implement  its use with interfaces  with  Oracle, Peoplesoft, SAP, Geac, JD Edwards etc etc.  These interfaces are inbound and outbound via GL, AP, AR, PO system etc.

Might not be well documented but it does work well given the right approach:-)

Hope the above helps.

Ciao

Michael

Michael,

Thanks for the reply.

I think my basic struggle results from not being able to use GL accounts unless I use the Chargeback feature.  We're an NPD group - we are not an IT group trying to allocate/chargeback our costs to non-IT groups.  We did consider using the feature for charging our NPD work to our Manufacturing Departments, but this idea never made it past the ideation phase.

As you explained it, I believe, I would only be able to utilize GL accounts in our ERP system, when transferring our NPD data into our ERP systems - the transfer process would utilize various attributes, like Transaction Class, Task Type and/or Charge Code, to determine which GL accounts to bin our numbers into in the ERP system.

Let me know, if you please, if I have understood your points correctly - I'll then mark your answer as 'correct.'

Thank you,

Dale

Hi Dale

Apologies for the delay but not on here regularly.  Yes, what I was explaining was the various options on creating exports to other finance systems.  But if you are not trying to export and just build reporting capabilities/forecasts within Clarity for time booked and external purchases then that is achievable too.

Ciao

Michael