Differences between results analysis and settlement ( SAP CO-PA)

You carry out the results analysis for an object (sales document item, internal order, service order, maintenance order, WBS element) and use the settlement to transfer the results analysis data to Profitiblity Analysis (CO-PA) and Financial Accounting. The values in Financial Accounting or Profitiblity Analysis for individual periods do not correspond with the values that the system displays in the reports of CO-PC (Product Cost by Sales Order), CO-OM (Product Cost by Order) or of PS (Project Controlling).

The differences are often due to the fact that the results analysis was subsequently carried out for periods which have already been closed, without having first settled the newly determined results analysis data.

You can also carry out the results analysis if the periods in FI and CO are closed. For the results analysis, only the cutoff period of the results analysis always to be set separately is relevant (compare with Note 190816).

Example:
You carried out the results analysis and the settlement for an object in periods 6/2000 to 8/2000. On 15 September 2000, in period 9/2000, you carry out the results analysis for period 6/2000 again. With the standard Customizing, this causes the results analysis to re determine all of the results analysis data from period 6/2000 to Period 8/2000 again. (In standard Customizing, the 'End' parameter is set to 'M' in the valuation methods. For a different end indicator, you have to adjust the correction options discussed in this Note accordingly.) Since factors which are not periodic are also involved in the determination, the results analysis data typically changes with redetermination. The non-periodic influencing factors are status and planning data changes. For this reason, a results analysis in the update run for previous periods which have already been closed is not useful, as a rule, particularly as a settlement with a prior settlement period is not possible without first having reversed the settlements of the subsequent periods which had already been carried out.
After you have carried out the results analysis subsequently for period 6/2000, carry out the usual period-end closing for period 9/2000, that is, you carry out a results analysis for the object and afterwards you settle it. You can distinguish between two situations:

1. You entered a cumulated settlement rule (full settlement):


              The settlement for period 9/2000 groups together all of the results analysis data changes in periods 6/2000 to 9/2000 and posts these changes as a total to period 9/2000. Therefore, all of the changes relevant to Profitability Analysis in period 9/2000 are settled and all of the changes relevant to FI are posted to period 9/2000. The total of the results analysis data of the object in CO-PC/CO-OM/PS corresponds with the data in Profitability Analysis and FI, however, the periodic values of 6/2000 to 9/2000 differ.

2. You entered a periodic settlement rule:


              The settlement for period 9/2000 only groups together all of the results analysis data changes in periods 6/2000 to 9/2000 for the transfer to Financial Accounting and posts the total of these changes to period 9/2000. For the results analysis data changes relevant to profitability analysis, only the changes to period 9/2000 are settled. The changes to periods 6/2000 to 8/2000 are not settled. In Financial Accounting, the total of the values correspond with the results analysis data of the object in CO-PC/CO-OM/PS, the periodic values from 6/2000 to 9/2000 differ as they did in the first example. In Profitability Analysis, the total of the values do not correspond with the results analysis data of the object in CO-PC/CO-OM/PS, the periodic values only correspond with period 9/2000. The costs of sales and the revenues of the object were not settled completely.

The correction options depend on your requirements for the correspondence between the different modules (CO-PC/CO-OM/PS, CO-PA, FI). The description refers to the above example.

1. The totals of the values should agree in the current period 9/2000, they do not have to agree in the previous periods.
a) You have a cumulated settlement rule:
                       In this instance, you do not have to do anything. The totals of the values agree with the values of the last settlement for period 9/2000.

b) You have a periodic settlement rule:
                       Insert a full settlement rule and carry out the settlement for the current period 9/2000 again. The totals of the values now agree in the individual modules. SAP recommends using the full settlement as the settlement type for objects with revenue.

2. The values should agree in all of the periods.
a) You update line items for the results analysis (you can set this in Customizing of the results analysis version):

Reverse the line items of the results analysis dated 15 September 2000 (program SAPKKA13). The subsequent changes to the results analysis for periods which have already been closed are thus reversed again.

Carry out the results analysis for period 9/2000 again.

Carry out the settlement for period 9/2000 again.

b) You do not update line items for the results analysis:
                       You can only undo the results analysis changes for closed periods with considerable effort. You have no choice but to transfer the changed values to CO-PA and Financial Accounting. Note that results analysis data exists, that does not correspond with the historical status of the object in each of the periods, because of the non-periodic portions for periods 6/2000 to 8/2000. Here, you absolutely have to check whether this changed results analysis data may be transferred to CO-PA and Financial Accounting.

Reverse the settlement for periods 9/2000, 8/2000 and 7/2000 (in this order). You may have to reverse the settlement several times for a period, since the settlement reversal is a document reversal. You do not have to reverse period 6/2000. If necessary, you have to open the periods in FI and CO.

Carry out the settlement for periods 6/2000, 7/2000, 8/2000 and 9/2000 again (in this order).

You can prevent an unintentional overwriting of the results analysis data of closed periods by using the cutoff period of the results analysis (Transaction KKA0). For further information about this, refer to Note 190816.

Transaction : KKA0

Data FI Table Featured Material Ledger Sale Sap FICO TaxVAT Validation customer payment ntercompany reconcilliation account screen layout taxation GL vendor PR

0 Response to "Differences between results analysis and settlement ( SAP CO-PA)"

Post a comment