9 Answers

• 00

  

  Plucinski 10/20/23, 12:31 PM

  Hello
  I think that this point should first be approached independently of SAP, i.e. first from a business perspective. You can't expect SAP to deliver something off the shelf, because things are customer specific.
  So creating a target concept is a must. Of course, this would go beyond the scope of this forum.
  The idea on the part of SAP is to map the UCT with the help of functional areas.
  You can find many approaches to this in the online documentation from SAP.
  With kind regards
  Jens Plucinski
  www.jensplucinski.de
  Consultant Business Economist SAP FI
  

  Last edited on 01.02.14 12:14

  report
• 00

  

  Demian (Author)10/20/23, 12:31 PM

  Ok, I admit, I can't figure out the answer.
  Because it is possible to activate the cost of sales method in the SPRO under Financial Accounting Global Settings, I actually assumed that the fundamentally different philosophy behind the two methods can be set on the SAP side.
  But now I don't want to simply set the checkmark to "activate" even in the test system, so I'm asking here for practical experience. I thought hopefully there will be someone who uses the UCT in SAP and thus could illustrate to me, for example, the thing with the GR/IR - account.
  The target concept is of course there. It just seems extremely out of round to me. As already mentioned in the opening post, I see the reinvention of the wheel in many places.
  Therefore again the question for practical experience. How does SAP post the issue of inventory buildup --> GR/IR --> inventory reduction (initially neutral) --> conversion to expense on sales with the Materials Management module activated.
  Demian

  report
• 00

  

  klausdieterjager 10/20/23, 12:31 PM

  Hello Demian
  as described by Mr. Plucinski, I would also see the functional areas as a solution approach for you.
  These are to be assigned to the CO objects (cost centers, internal orders ...).
  However, they can also be stored in the G/L account master (only in exceptional cases, please) or be included in the posting.
  I.e. each posting to a CO object leads to an assignment to a functional area.
  Posting consumption to a cost center "Sales" shows the whole thing in the sales costs (P&L by functional area provided).
  There is then also the famous functional area Cost of Goods Sold.
  In our company, this is mainly filled by the costing values of the semi-finished and finished parts or the acquisition costs GDW for material and merchandise.
  Prerequisite: the sales orders for which the material is sold are assigned to the correct functional area by default.
  Analogous then naturally also for the posting of possibly resulting outgoing freight, insurance, customs and what the niceties are more.
  Also our American, Turkish and Chinese colleagues who are sworn to UKV / have even prescribed this use the GKV for booking and the evaluation with the business units for local reporting.
  With kind regards
  Klaus Jager

  report
• 00

  

  Demian (Author)10/20/23, 12:31 PM

  Aha... - that sounds like our reinvention of the wheel. We are also moving towards having the US colleagues post according to GKV and then neutralize the already posted expenses via reports at the end of the month according to GKV philosophy again by manual postings to other inventory accounts.
  My starting point is: this can't really be the case. Whereas the UCT can be activated as a procedure/philosophy in SAP. Only I just fail in thinking attempts, how I should integrate a single company code according to UKV in a group accounting with GKV. I realize that there must be manual adjusting entries somewhere to make the merge work.
  Based on our situation, we do this circus (group report) when it comes up in a half-year consolidated balance sheet (but with the handbrake on) and of course at year-end. In my logic, I would have said: It is better to change the UKV to GKV twice a year than to have the US people change the GKV to UKV every month, i.e. 12 times a year.
  But nobody wants to follow this logic. So it seems to be a problem to set this checkmark "UKV" in customizing. Is it possible that this is not possible on company code level? A look into the SPRO tells me that I can do this per company code. In the help I find the hint that only with activated UCT the specification of functional areas is possible.
  @klausdieterjager
  Could you have a look in customizing if the UCT is set to active for the US, TR and CN company codes?
  With your last sentence I have difficulties in understanding. Your colleagues post according to GKV and then evaluate according to UKV. But then there would have to be a lot of manual corrections before the evaluation, so that all the consumption postings, which are not related to generated sales of the accounting period, are neutralized again. Or?
  Thank you very much for your help.
  Demian

  report
• 00

  

  klausdieterjager 10/20/23, 12:31 PM

  Hello Demian,
  since we report according to functional areas, we have set the check mark.
  This is also the case for the entire Group, as we switched from reporting according to GKV to that according to UKV as part of the introduction of IFRS reporting.
  However, we still post worldwide according to GKV.
  From my experience, I cannot really confirm the manual standardizing entries.
  The results of both reporting methods are identical, only the reporting differs depending on whether the expense belongs to sales or to "other costs".
  The inventory postings have to be separated, that's right.
  The postings in the manufacturing process to a functional area Production (0150), the writing for sales to "Cost of Goods sold" (0100). But this is controlled by the CO objects and their assignment to the functional areas.
  The work actually consists of examining the individual cost centers and process steps with their internal orders and allocations to determine whether they belong to the respective functional areas and then setting this up correctly.
  To summarize the functional areas in a report to get the structure is not complicated.
  But one more question on the side - which accounting method should actually be the leading one in terms of valuation principles - the local one according to US GAAP or that of the group and its regulations?
  Depending on this, a reconciliation may have to be tinkered with at this point.
  With kind regards
  Klaus Jager

  report
• 00

  

  Nastena26 10/20/23, 12:31 PM

  Further information can also be found at
  http://www.umsatzkostenverfahren.de

  report
• 00

  

  joko 10/20/23, 12:31 PM

  I would like to bring another aspect into the discussion UKV/GKV.
  For the GKV, SAP provides the RFBIBL00, with which I can create the corresponding evaluations system-supported.
  For the presentation of the UKV the ReportPainter is recommended. Here, however, each user must "tinker" a report himself.
  I don't mean this in a disrespectful way, but it can't be state of the art that such essential evaluations as the presentation of the UCT have to be created on table level by the user himself and in every company.
  I would like to see better support from SAP here.
  Or are there other approaches in the meantime?
  Sincerely
  joko

  report
• 00

  

  User #44765 10/20/23, 12:31 PM

  Hello,
  where does it say that Report Painter / Writer are recommended for UKV.
  What can the RFBILA10 do?
  LG Klaus Oberhauser

  report
• 00

  

  FelixFICO 10/20/23, 12:31 PM

  oberhauser:

  ---

  Hello,
  where does it say that Report Painter / Writer are recommended for UKV.
  What can the RFBILA10?
  LG klaus Oberhauser
  

  
  In note 302385 research reports are recommended, transaction FSI0.
  Many greetings,
  Felix

  report