The latest version (21.6.32) renames “Tracking Codes” to “Divisions”.
The reason for this is that I do want to emphasize that tracking codes (now known as divisions) should be used to faciliate divisional accounting and assist in creation with divisional financial statements.
I know many have been using tracking codes to track job or project costing. And that’s fine. You can continue to use divisions for this purpose. However, in upcoming months I expect Manager to have proper job-costing module.
I am trying to get my head around a consideration where instead of building out the divisions as envisioned here, if it would not have been easier and more compliant to allow Main businesses to create sub-businesses. This would require some sort of aggregation of the Charts of Accounts and Reporting a the Main business level. The former concept and use of tracking codes for job trakcing, etc could then be retained.
That’s a great idea for when the division is actually a subsidiary business. That would be a great addition to Manager.
But I wouldn’t drop the current implementation because it’s still useful at smaller scales like departments, cost centers and other “soft” segments.
Yes maybe I took business division too literal for some instances as you describe such as departments, but to have loans between divisions to make the books balance for each seems unnecessarily complicated. I also wonder why this would be necessary as control accounts could help manage such departments on the BS side with some separate income & and cost accounts with shared administrative expense accounts on the P&L side. Anyway, I guess that most users who use tracking codes will be happy with the change to divisions as it helps with BS part.
Yikes - in no way do I use tracking codes for divisional reporting.
I much prefer ‘tracking code’ terminology then let folks use them as they want for projects, divisions, whatever personal use cases may be. In my case I track expenses by aircraft (while nice to track depreciation and assets by aircraft “tracking” code too), in no way are they divisions.
The “generic-ness” of tracking codes is their power.
I understand the thought because there has been a lot of talk about balance sheet but even there not sure all or primary usage is Divisional.
It’s only a name changed for their use with income and expense accounts
Although the original purpose of tracking codes was divisional P&L reporting, I agree with you, @alasdair. Users have adapted them to so many purposes, a generic title now seems more appropriate. There is nothing confusing about a tracking code being used to “track” divisional accounting.
Why division not postponed till job-costing introduced?
I think it would be better to develop tracking code to job-costing module (if possible) to avoid changing previous entries afterwards. Maybe Divisions could be made as a separate option not by merging it with tracking codes.
Otherwise, sub-division or sub-tracking codes can be introduced, where under each division multiple tracking codes (just an idea).
Division will be able to represent legal entity. It doesn’t have to be internal division. But the implementation is not yet mature enough to support this. For example, you can’t get tax reports per division yet which is quite important. There are other loose ends which I need to address but the plan is that
Business can contain group of legal entities and you will be able to get financial statements per each legal entity (division) or consolidated one for the entire business group (in Manager terminology just
Thank you for the explanation, surely there are more ways that lead to Rome, and the one proposed is fine but seems complicated compared to the functionality already developed where multiple businesses can be set up. My pondering suggests that it may be easier to develop and more robust to use when you would be able to aggregate businesses into a higher-level business by inheriting and aggregating the data in the chart of accounts from which then aggregate reports can be generated. It would powerfully allow for business units in different countries with different currencies to be compliant with requirements of local authorities and indeed taxation while preparing consolidated company statements and reports. The development in either way is definitely a good one.
Thinking aloud - Legal entity is typically a ‘balancing segment, in chart whereas ‘tracking code’ is anything you want and need not be complete or balance.
How do you see the distinction? What if folks want to track projects, maybe across multiple divisions or legal entities. Company 01 division A charged 100 to project X. Company 01 division B $200 and Company 02 $300. I get it but whereas you can (for now) use a tracking code to try to track divisional activity if that’s what your tracking. You can’t track a project as a division.
I’d be in favor of leaving tracking codes generic and if the demand is really there for divisions or legal entities think about a multi-segment COA. (Or consolidation for multiple businesses).
While you can use a tracking code to track a division. A division isn’t a project. I get the concept but tend to think these are two distinct dimensions. I can see the need for some for division but not as a replacement/at the loss of tracking codes.
If we are going to have divisions please let those divisions track projects and/or even share projects (tracked things) across divisions.
I like the direction @lubos is taking Manager Accounting. I think the end results will be worth the wait and temporary difficulties.
any update on the costing module ?