Re: Another G/L question with an A/P twist...

Jeff,

We have something similar although we are using it for Enterprise Orders in
Style.  We have the same supplier (the supply company) in each of the
demand companies pointing to the same GL, but the demand companies each
have their own AP, PM, OE, etc.  We had a few pgms to change as they were
using the GKL company instead of the AP company and vice versa, but nothing
major.  We have had no issues since we changed it.

Cheers,
John




                                                                           
             "Jeff Klipa"                                                  
             <jklipa@xxxxxxxxx                                             
             om>                                                        To 
             Sent by:                  system21@xxxxxxxxxxxx               
             system21-bounces@                                          cc 
             midrange.com                                                  
                                                                   Subject 
                                       Re: [SYSTEM21] Another G/L question 
             19/05/2005 20:30          with an A/P twist...                
                                                                           
                                                                           
             Please respond to                                             
              System 21 Users                                              
             <system21@midrang                                             
                  e.com>                                                   
                                                                           
                                                                           




I did not consider PM in the equation.
I'm almost making sense of what you said...  Just to be clear...
We want multiple PM companies and multiple AP companies all pointing to a
single GL company...

So to illustrate:
______________________________
AP cono     PM cono      GL cono
    07              07             90
    08              08             90
.
.
.
    25              25             90
______________________________
AP and PM will be a one-to-one relationship (they will always be the same
cono).
AP and PM will always point to the same GL (many AP & PM conos to one GL
cono).

We were contemplating a new GL account code structure that places the
source
company number in position 5 & 6 of the GL Account code.

If we maintain these company realtionship rules between the applications
would we be safe in bypassing that safety check in PL015 that tests to see
if the Vendor already exists in the Consolidated GL company when we attempt

to add a vendor in one of the multiple AP companies.

I appreciate your consideration of this question.


----Original Message Follows----
From: pajrawson@xxxxxxx
Reply-To: System 21 Users <system21@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: system21@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [SYSTEM21]   Another G/L question with an A/P twist...
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 11:03:13 -0400

The reason is Purchase Management not necessarily Accounts Payable. A PM
company is attached to a GL Company, but multiple AP companies can be
attached to a GL. It is therefore possible that one pM company can service
multiple AP companies (which share the same GL)!!

Hope that makes sense.

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Klipa <jklipa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: system21@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thu, 19 May 2005 14:12:45 +0000
Subject: [SYSTEM21] Another G/L question with an A/P twist...


Greetings everyone,

We're contemplating moving to one General Ledger.

If you look at the code for Vendor maintenance (PL015) in A/P it won't let
you add a vendor code to PLP05 if a vendor already exists within the same
G/L company. Error message "USL0032 - Supplier code already exists within
General Ledger"

Using the SUPNAMGL logical file keyed on GLCO05/SUPN05/DSEQ05 the logic in
program PL015 won't let you point the same vendor in multiple A/P companies

to one G/L company.

My question to the group is, "Why does this logic exist...?" What is the
problem with having the same vendor in multiple A/P companies pointing to
one consolidated G/L company...? I must be missing the bigger picture...

Any feedback would be appreciated...

Thanks.


_______________________________________________
This is the System 21 Users (SYSTEM21) mailing list
To post a message email: SYSTEM21@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/system21
or email: SYSTEM21-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/system21.