RE: IFM AR Aging - Sort Order

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...