FAQ: Install/Implementation of S/4HANA in the field of Asset accounting
Listed below are some challenges which a prospective customer could face during an install/implementation of S/4HANA in the field of Asset accounting:
Why is technical clearing GL account used?
The new Asset Accounting is extremely flexible as far as its architecture is concerned. Which means that going forward by virtue of utilizing both the approaches of ledger and the accounts, you should be able to parallel work on the valuations of your assets by virtue of utilizing both the approaches of ledger and the accounts.
It is not a mandate now to use the depreciation area 01 for the same. Now the leading valuation can be logged in any of the depreciation area. Both the values of the parallel valuation in real time as well as the actual values of the leading valuation on a real time basis are posted by the system. This results in posting of delta values which is substituted; which refers to the delta depreciation areas and that is not required.
New Asset Accounting enables the posting on a real time in all valuations, which is also applicable for all accounting principles. Through this the tracking the postings of all valuations is made possible without considering the postings of all the leading valuation, which is quite similar to the case in classic Asset Accounting.
For successful implementation of these features, the architecture had to be modified in such a way that the positing is done for asset accounting of each valuation in a separate document. Therefore, only specific postings are made for certain accounting principles. In technical language we do ledger-groups specific postings.
In the accounts payable and accounts receivable which is also known as the operational part the value for each accounting principle is always the same and does not differ. Hence in the operational part postings which are considered valid for all accounting principles are only performed. In this technically only those postings are performed which do not specify the ledger-group.
For dividing the business process between an operational and a valuating document a need for establishing the “technical clearing account for integrated asset acquisition”, arose.
The vendor invoice which constitutes a part of the operational side the system ideally posts a document which is valid for all accounting principles as against the technical clearing account for integrated asset acquisitions. The system generates a ledger-group-independent document for a technical perspective.
For each valuating part (asset posting with capitalization of the asset), the system generates a separate document that is valid only for the given accounting principle. This document is also posted against the technical clearing account for integrated asset acquisitions. From a technical perspective, the system generates ledger-group-specific documents.
It is imperative to look from the view point of specific accounting principle. As Per the accounting Principle, both the the operational document as well as the valuation document are balancing to zero.
In simple finance even If the customer never utilizes the asset accounting, Is new Asset Accounting mandatory ?
Incase in the Asset Accounting then there is no data, which refers to the both transactional as well as the customizing data, which have to be migrated, in such a scenario there is no compulsion for performing the migration step in Asset Accounting.
If you later decide to use Asset Accounting in new asset accounting, then you can set up the customizing in the IMG.
What is migration path for customer who are already on SFIN 1.0 and want to upgrade to 2.0?
SAP Customizing Implementation Guide -> SAP Simple Finance Add-On for SAP Business Suite powered by SAP HANA -> Preparations and Migration of Customizing -> Preparations and Migration of Customizing for Asset Accounting -> Adjustment in New Asset Accounting
Assuming that LSMW programs have been specifically designed for uploading the asset data in SFIN1.0 and before GOLIVE a decision is made regarding the going live on SFIN2.0 then, what will be the response of these programs? Would a re-recording LSMW be required because of Universal Journal?
This would entirely depend on the way the LSMW is recorded. Incase it was recorded using the BAPIs then there shouldn’t be much of a hassle in reusing the same. should be no problem to reuse them.
You need to be careful that the tables have changed with sFIN2.0 using the Universal Journal. Before the legacy transfer of sFIN2.0, a asset master data was created along with the updating of the takeover values which comes in in asset accounting and is not a part of the general ledger.
However, at present with sFIN2.0 we are unable to update the takeover values in the asset accounting tables. These are required to be posted as universal journal entry , which is a a document in table ACDOCA.
Which basically means that this entails the creation of an asset master data meant for the legacy data transfer. Post that we need to enter the transfer takeover values and then post them as universal journal.
With the changed method of implementation of the legacy data transfer, you will be required to re-record your LSMW.
For the process of account approach, for defining Asset Balance Sheet Accounts of Parallel Valuation as Reconciliation Accounts is required. Incase the parallel ledger approach is in use, is this still essential?
No, for the ledger approach this particular step is not needed because the asset balance sheet accounts have already been implemented as reconciliation accounts.
For the account approach considering the classic asset accounting the following applies: the asset balance sheet accounts meant for the leading valuation have already had been set up as reconciliation accounts. however, for the asset balance sheet accounts which is for the parallel valuation these have not been set up as reconciliation accounts.
In case the account approach in place, then this step is applicable for the asset balance sheet accounts for all parallel valuations.
All about the transaction types for investment measures, these are limited for depreciation areas before the migration?
As per the new Asset Accounting, it is not likely and not imperative to restrict transaction types to depreciation areas. This is not a mandate since upon entering the enter a transaction, you can restrict it to a particular depreciation area or to an accounting principle. In addition to all this , in a posting transaction, one can even select the particular depreciation areas which need to be posted. All of this can suggestively reduce the overall number of transaction types which have to defined in the system.
Investment support and also revaluation and new valuation are an exception:
Both the transaction types for investment support and revaluation are robotically generated by the system while creating a corresponding measure, and therefore restricts the depreciation area this is posted to.
The transaction types for revaluation and new valuation which relate to transaction type group 81/82/89 can continue to be restricted to depreciation areas.
Related: CONFIGURATION STEPS IN ASSET ACCOUNTING
Original tables still remain in Simple finance and can be viewed by xxx_ORI. Does that mean footprint will not be smaller? Rather, it will be bigger?
With sFIN2.0 it is only possible to store the data once in the universal journal. Before sFIN2.0 the data was originally stored in the general ledger and in the sub ledger. So this data stored was all terminated.
With sFIN2.0 the data is migrated to the universal journal. For future business processes only update the universal journal ACDOCA.
With the FAAV_<Tablename>_ORI one can access the content of the old tables. These old tables can even optionally be archived or even deleted even if memory footprint is critical.
What are there any limitations compared to older version of Asset Accounting to New Asset Accounting which are required to be updated on the customer upfront?
All the limitations are labeled in the release notes of Asset Accounting in sFIN1.0 and sFIN2.0. In addition to all these we also offer a PreCheck Report which needs to be downloaded and performed before performing the technical migration to sFIN2.0.
How would you define the ledger group?
The ledger group is an activity in Customizing which was already implemented with New GL:Financial Accounting (New) -> Global Settings (New) -> Ledgers -> Ledger -> Define Ledger Group
What is the One accounting principle for one ledger group?
Ideally in a general scenario you should assign the one accounting principle to one ledger group.
Assuming that 0L is your leading ledger in the system and assuming that you have a leading valuation GAAP1 and a parallel valuation GAAP2 you would set up.
Is it possible to have account approach for parallel accounting with new asset accounting, as compared to the ledger approach?
The New Asset Accounting was first implemented in a first step in a business function FIN_AA_PARALLEL_VAL in EHP7. As a part of this business function the new Asset Accounting is only available with New GL and the ledger approach. With sFIN1.0 and sFIN2.0 new Asset Accounting chains both the ledger approach along with the account approach.
For closed fiscal years before migration is the reporting still done via old tables?
All your data which includes that of closed fiscal years will be migrated into the new database tables. All the reporting on migrated data both of closed fiscal years and of the open fiscal can still be done by selecting the old tables by virtue of using the compatibility views.
With regards to the fiscal year in the depreciation areas, are these required to start with same date? Is there an issue if my IFRS fiscal year goes from 01/01 to 31/12 and my fiscal year goes from 01/04 to 31/02?
You will not be able to set up the scenario in Asset Accounting. This has to be kept in mind with new Asset Accounting and you will be able to set up posting to different periods and this only possible if the beginning/end of the FY are equal.
For instance :
For GAAP1 you have set up a fiscal year variant beginning on the 01/01 and ending on the 31/12 with 12 periods
For GAAP2 you set up a fiscal year variant beginning on the 01/01 and ending on the 31/12 with 24 periods
Is it still possible to use limited transaction types?
Yes, although it is possible to use the limited transaction types, however it is not. This is only recommended for special cases necessary. "investment management” and “revaluations” are reinforced as before.
Does the process of archiving makes any logic before the migration?
Yes, archive is quite possible before the process of migration
Can depreciations be calculated on a daily basis or only on a monthly basis?
Depreciations are premeditated on a periodic basis. Therefore it is only possible on a monthly basis
The possibility of adding new accounting principles and to deleting/adding new depreciation areas in AA after sFIN goes live?
a) The report for changing the depreciation areas and to filling them with values cannot be reused with sFIN.
b) This is a new accounting principle or a new ledger (planned with 16/10)
What is maximum number of AFAB for a period (TABA-AFBANZ) is up to 99 in ERP. Does same limitation remain in sFIN AA as well?
The main difference between migration to S/4HANA Finance and migration to S/4HANA On Premise?
There is no difference between migration to S/4HANA Finance and migration to S/4HANA On Premise, from a financial migration perspective. However, due to logistics impacts it is recommended that you consider many things with S/4HANA.
Is it a mandate to run AFAR?
Any changes required to be made to an asset also requires the plan depreciation values to be revised. During customizing changes is the only period when you still need to run AFAR.
The compatibility of Is JVA and New Asset Accounting with JVA or does it have any restriction with specific scenario in JVA?
Yes, it is availalable with 15/03 and 15/11