5 Answers

• 00

  

  SchreinerD 10/23/23, 6:35 PM

  Hello Bernd60,
  we have circumvented this issue by basically switching from allocation to activity allocation.
  Then you no longer have this problem, as the allocation takes place in the activity-based activity input planning.
  In addition, it is then also possible to differentiate these costs according to fixed and variable components.
  In the actuals, indirect activity allocation continues to allocate via cycle/segment and the system can use the target costs to assign the actual costs to the correct activity types in order to then determine the actual price.
  Does this help for the time being?
  Many greetings SchreinerD

  report
• 00

  

  User #6525 (Author)10/23/23, 6:35 PM

  Hello
  and thank you very much for your explanation.
  Indeed, your solution looks very practical and I have already tried it once in the test.
  It gives usable results in the plan, thank you very much.
  For the ACTUAL I have to test again with the calculation, but I am quite optimistic.
  Thank you very much for your execution.
  Bernd

  report
• 00

  

  Uwe 10/23/23, 6:35 PM

  Hello !
  The inclusion in exactly ONE activity type for all secondary cost elements can be achieved by using a splitting rule based on statistical key figures. For this purpose, all these secondary cost elements for this activity type must be contained in a cost element group, which is then linked in the splitting rule with an assignment to a statistical key figure. This can simply be given the value 100 and should be of the type fixed value, so that it is sufficient to post it only once per year in planning and in January. In the step of the plan or actual splitting, the assignment of these cost elements is then done in the, here exactly one tariff, for the conscious activity type.
  Added: I had forgotten to mention that the cost centers in question must of course be assigned to a new splitting scheme that contains exactly the above rules.
  Maybe my hint comes too late, because normally you change something like that per fiscal year or for a full fiscal year already in the planning period. Maybe next year ...
  Greetings
  Uwe
  

  Last edited on 10.01.20 10:32

  report
• 00

  

  User #6525 (Author)10/23/23, 6:35 PM

  Hello,
  Thank you very much for the constructive suggestions.
  I will test them thoroughly and if practicable then realize them.
  VG Bernd

  report
• 00

  

  Uwe 10/23/23, 6:35 PM

  Good morning !
  The note of practicability is really important. Depending on how many people in how many company codes understand this splitting rule and, in addition to customizing, have to contribute to the solution by posting the statistical key figure, the less reliable it runs. In addition, the cost centers, and also, for example, new cost centers that are to be subject to this form of splitting, must be assigned to the corresponding splitting scheme in customizing. YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THIS AND ORGANIZE CLEAR RESPONSIBILITIES.
  In principle, this definitely works, because I can report that many companies of a group I used to support use this solution. If this fails, it is only because the local controllers, possibly due to a lack of understanding of the splitting and its PURPOSE, forget to plan the value for the statistical key figure for the activity type or to post it in January.
  All the best !
  Uwe

  report