Efficacy of Using Finance Dimension 1 instead of Accounting Unit dimension in FEG?

andy

Does anyone else currently use Finance Dimension 1 as their Accounting Unit dimension in their FEG Finance Structure instead of using the actual Accounting Unit Dimension, and if so can you provide any rationale why this might be preferable?

I wasn't present for the discussion, but Infor Consultants built our FEG this way and apparently advised us it would be more "flexible", but we haven't really seen any actual benefits, and instead have run into a number of issues with inter entity postings and malfunctioning delivered content.

Thanks!
Andy

ron-newberry-jr

Hi Andy

This is a rather lengthy topic, but I will try to be succinct.

One of the first decisions to be made is around Zone Balancing. If you want to have zone balancing for all Accounting Entities, then consider using FinanceDimension1. When using this dimension, the zone balancing is turned on at the Finance Enterprise Group level. If you have the scenario where only certain Accounting Entities require Zone Balancing, then Accounting Unit may be the best option. In this case, Zone Balancing is turned on at the Accounting Entity level. This also allows you to have different zone balancing accounting units for different Accounting Entities.

When we talk about efficiency (I am going to use department as an example), if I need the same department in 20 Accounting Entities, I need to set that department up in the FEG 20 times if I am using Accounting Unit. On the other hand, if I am using FinanceDimension1, I only need to set up that department once.

We have also found that the structures within FinanceDimension1 render easier in the BIFSM reporting area. Because of the potential disparity between the meaning of, say department 1, between Accounting Entities, it is often difficult to have meaningful consolidation at a department level.

I hope this helps in some way.