MCPR_RULES ERROR

Thanks Johan, 

I had some play around it but I really strugle to undersatdn the funtionality on this , if you create a rule , you still have to input the customer activity detail when booking time and expenses… not sure what the aim is with the rules. 

Thanks, 

Hi Charlotte @CM6,

In short, the key thing to remember is that the employee is effectively reporting time on the customer company project, not the employee company project.

To elaborate, the purpose of the Multi-Company Project Reporting solution is to allow resources in different (employee) companies to report time directly on the project that you execute, i.e. the project in the customer company. In other words, the ‘real’ project sits in the customer company, and this is where you would typically have your detailed WBS etc.

To handle the inter-company liabilities you also need an employee project, but typically this would be a simplified ‘Inter-Company Work’ project, where you’d have a single activity for each customer project.

Note that this means that as the user reports time, they effectively report on the relevant activity in the WBS of the customer company, which then creates the employee company transaction, rather than the other way around.

The purpose of the MCPR Rules based set-up therefore is to be able to reduce the amount of basic data needed, where you can create just one line to handle this scenario, specifying the distinct employee company activity that you use for inter-company invoicing, but using wildcards for the sub project and activity of the customer company project. As mentioned in the previous reply though, note that there are some limitations/restrictions here, e.g. in the expense management process.

Hope this clarifies things?

Kind regards,

Johan

thanks Johan, it does clarify , However, this differs of IFS project reporting documentation where the time is booked on the employee company, rather than on the customer company 🤷🏻

Thanks for highlighting that Charlotte. The ‘About Multi-Company Project Reporting’ document does not appear to be entirely accurate in this regard, so I have logged an internal issue for reviewing it so this can hopefully be clarified.

Kind regards,

Johan