+11There is a supplier invoice with several rows that are to be posted to different code combinations with different authorizers.
Should it not be possible to authorize your own cost postings in the Posting Proposal window without having to wait for all other invoice recipients to post their costs?
Best answer by Thomas Peterson
Hi,
In your example - it appears that the invoice is not balanced at the time of authorization. In the example assume a completed invoice has 4 lines that would trigger different rules.
Assume line 1 is entered and a rule is triggered. IFS will not allow authorization at that time. This is my understanding of the reported subject.
We authorize the posting lines based on rules. We essentially group the various posting lines based on the rules and authorize that grouping. Assume invoice posting line 2 is entered and uses the same rule as line 1. Then we would have a authorization issue with the first grouping, as it was authorized and now we send additional posting authorizations to the same group. We would need to allow a flavor of partial authorizations and or stop the group process and then require authorizations per posting line. Assume we have 10 posting lines and the same group, the user would need to authorize all 10 lines individually. I don’t believe that would be a desirable solution.
One idea - I would not recommend, could be to have a default code string not tied to a rule. As the invoice is reviewed the user would move value X from the default code string to the correct code string. The invoice would be in balance and it may allow authorization of that row. I have not tested this, but it may work. The extra work will be that a value from the original posting line would need to be reduced and a new correct line added. You could even leave the default as is, then add a reversing line for X amount and then a + line for the real line. This process may solve your request, but it’s not an ideal solution. You may consider a modification.
Best regards,
Thomas
Hi,
That process depends on how IFS is set up. You can have parallel authorizations or Consecutive
Per help.
Authorization Routing:
Determines how the authorization of postings should be performed when there is more than one authorizer. If Use Consecutive Authorization is selected, the authorization should be performed according to the sequence of authorizers defined in the posting proposal. This does not apply for the Acknowledgers. If Use Parallel Authorization is selected, the sequence of authorizers in posting proposal does not apply.
If consecutive authorization is used, you must authorize 1, then 2, then 3, then 4 etc.
If parallel you can authorize in any order.
This option is found at the company
Without an image of the error, I’m assuming this is the driving the inquiry.
Best regards,
Thomas
+11Thanks for your answer Thomas. but it does not address my issue.
We do use consecutive authorization. When the first person is done posting the part of the invoice amount that this person is responsible for, it would be natural to authorise the postings for this amount immediately, leaving the residual amount for others to post and authorize when they get to it. This is not possible - shouldn’t it be?
Hi,
In your example - it appears that the invoice is not balanced at the time of authorization. In the example assume a completed invoice has 4 lines that would trigger different rules.
Assume line 1 is entered and a rule is triggered. IFS will not allow authorization at that time. This is my understanding of the reported subject.
We authorize the posting lines based on rules. We essentially group the various posting lines based on the rules and authorize that grouping. Assume invoice posting line 2 is entered and uses the same rule as line 1. Then we would have a authorization issue with the first grouping, as it was authorized and now we send additional posting authorizations to the same group. We would need to allow a flavor of partial authorizations and or stop the group process and then require authorizations per posting line. Assume we have 10 posting lines and the same group, the user would need to authorize all 10 lines individually. I don’t believe that would be a desirable solution.
One idea - I would not recommend, could be to have a default code string not tied to a rule. As the invoice is reviewed the user would move value X from the default code string to the correct code string. The invoice would be in balance and it may allow authorization of that row. I have not tested this, but it may work. The extra work will be that a value from the original posting line would need to be reduced and a new correct line added. You could even leave the default as is, then add a reversing line for X amount and then a + line for the real line. This process may solve your request, but it’s not an ideal solution. You may consider a modification.
Best regards,
Thomas
+11Thanks Thomas,
What you proposed is close to the workaround we are using. only we have a specific administrator invoice recipient not allowed any posting amounts. The next user posts the belonging amount and updates the line with the residual.
Thanks and regards
Jonas
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
