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...)