This new functionality works well, however is it possible to also provide this type of functionality for Suppliers, Customers, Expense payers, etc.
Often one supplier, customer, etc will have dealings across more than one division and the only way to account for this, currently, is by having 2 instances of the supplier, customer, etc.
A field could be placed in the transaction header next to selection of the client for those suppliers, customers, etc that do not have a division set. e.g.
You are suggesting having contacts which interact with Manager in more than one way.
For example “John Smith”
could interact with Manager business division “A”, “B”, or “C”. Reports for John Smith overall and probably specific dealings with division “A”, “B”, or “C” maybe reasonably requested. Ideally Manager would only request clarification of which division when it was ambiguous.
the program requirements are similar to John Smith interaction with Manager as a customer, supplier employee and expense claim payer. So while I can see value in supporting this, I suspect it is not as easy as it may appear.
To support this perhaps when creating a contact, which of several divisions the contact interacts with could be specified.
In the short term it maybe necessary to have a different contact for each division they interact with.
I don’t see it this way. It would be easier to have all divisions available at transaction level, (if a division isn’t nominated in the client set up).
It has been done with custom balance sheet accounts I believe that it could be possible for contacts.
The following screen shot shows an overall AP balance of $127.34 all of which is shown in one division. It is 2 purchase invoices for the same supplier, 1 invoice for $27.34 which is correctly shown in the first division, but the 2nd invoice for $100.00 should be shown in the second division.
The only way to achieve this currently is to have a separate instance of the supplier set up for the second division.
Why is it important to split this supplier by division? If you say that it’s because so liabilities are properly reflected per division, they still are.
If supplier belongs to division A but the supplier invoice comes for expenses incurred by division B, what happens is that interdivisional loan will hold the balance for those expenses.
So division A will look like it owes $100 to supplier but at the same time it will show division B owes $100 to division A thus total liabilities of division A will be zero.
The reason why I do not support suppliers, customers, bank accounts, cash accounts etc. to have division set on transaction-level is because divisional ledger for these accounts would be meaningless.
If you are reconciling your account with supplier, the supplier will send you one statement for the account… not per division - they do not know how you split your transactions by division nor do they care as from their point of view - you have one account with them.
If you want them to send you statements per division, then you’d have two accounts with them - and you would create each account as separate supplier.
At the end of the day, Manager is to reflect what is really happening in real world. In real world, this supplier is one account.
I agree. The figure will be clickable and you will be able to drill-down into which division owes which one and why.
Interdivisional loan comes into play when you have a transaction which spans across multiple divisions. The less such transactions you have, the less entries in interdivisional loan.
This is a fantastic addition to Manager and whilst I haven’t read all the threads I would like to offer the following:-
It is a great initiative to have the ability in the P & L to enter a Division at the line item level ,however I see this can also create a level of complexity that not everyone requires. It would be useful if a P & L account could have a default division set for it so that transactions posted to that account would automatically link to it. This would mean that only line items that belong in another division can be changed when required. It’s worth remembering that those that are already using the system for divisional accounting have created individual accounts to cater for this and therefore the chart of accounts will need to be amended .
Is this update only available for the Cloud Version? I have tried it in the Desktop version but after creating the Divisions they are still not available when I try to amend Balance Sheet accounts ?
If you don’t need divisions, don’t create them. Then, they (and the field itself) will not appear. If you have divisions, you need the field to appear so you can select the correct division.
This should not have been done for P&L accounts, if that is what you are referring to. Previously, tracking codes should have been used; these would have been converted automatically to divisions.
No. All editions are the same except for multiple user capabilities in the server and cloud editions. There are no differences for divisions.
I have divisions created
I do not see division selection on any of the Balance Sheet Accounts. I have download 27.7.15 but still do not see the Division Selection when trying yo edit a Balance Sheet Account the Chart of Accounts?
Sorry to trouble you.
I have just worked out the error of my ways. I didn’t look beyond the Bank Accounts… which of course can only belong to one division. …Very dumb