|
Chuck, You may want to take a look at some standard IFM reports available with Info WorkPlace (IWP). These reports sort by the invoice number and not an unprinted transaction id. The aging using a standard 30/60/90 day and does not rely on the aging structures. IWP has a free use option to run all of the Mapics provided reports, and permits you to create five of your own. You can order the CD via the web using SH14456. Momentum is the developer of Info WorkPlace, JacanaForms and inTuator. Regards, -Greg Gregory Novak Manager North American Technical Services Momentum Utilities Pty Ltd (630) 985-1736 gnovak@xxxxxxxxxx www.jacana.com Making Information Work for your Business www.intuator.com -----Original Message----- From: Chuck Mick [mailto:micklc@xxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 1:20 AM To: mapics-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: Csd Subject: IFM AR Aging - Sort Order Hello. Hopefully somebody can point me in the right direction to resolve this concern. We are running XA R6. We are using IFM for our financials. We use Future Three / Infor AutoRelease via the legacy bridge to 'send' our invoice data into MAPICS. We have been doing this for about five years without any truly significant concern. I don't think this information is truly related to the issue...but I'm providing for some background. Within the past several weeks / months, our AR folks have noticed that the AR aging appears 'odd'. (age ledger balance -- print the list) The information appears correct. The aging information / buckets seem fine. All the information appears to be on each report. The 'odd' concern is the sort order. Transactions appear to be sorted by transaction date / transaction number. Previously, our folks assert that the transactions were sorted by either invoice number or invoice date. The reports produced seem to bear this out. For example, if we posted 25 individual cash receipt transactions on 4-18-2005 which included the creation and posting of various accounts receivable debits. The AR debits were specifically dated 4-8-2005 and they sorted on the aging as a 4-18-2005 date when cash was posted - not the effective date of the transaction. Another similar example. We created several AR invoices at the beginning of April...approximately April 8 and April 9. We dated that transactions March 31. The transactions sort on the report as if 'dated' April 8 rather than the March 31 invoice date. 'Sample' 101762 4/27/05 ARI .56+ 101777 4/28/05 ARI .71+ 101792 4/29/05 ARI .56+ 101793 4/29/05 ARI .84+ 101817 4/30/05 ARI .67+ 101827 5/03/05 ARI .45+ 101866 5/04/05 ARI .55+ 101896 5/05/05 ARI .26+ 101923 5/06/05 ARI .16+ -->101966 4/30/05 ARI .84- -->101974 4/30/05 ARI .00+ -->101975 4/30/05 ARI .00+ 101954 5/09/05 ARI .74+ 309566 5/09/05 ARI .30+ 309567 5/09/05 ARI .38+ 101982 5/10/05 ARI .25+ 101984 5/10/05 ARI .15+ The transactions in question / sorting concern does not appear to be related to the legacy bridge or AutoRelease software. We have not identified any changes to our processes. We have not identified any changes to our system...not to say that some 'previous' changes impact wasn't just noticed. We contacted global...but they indicated no changes to programs...Global 'confirmed' the reports are sorted by transaction number -- which does not appear on the reports. They indicated this has not changed...
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact copyright@midrange.com.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.