El dimarts 28 de maig de 2013 14:21:59 UTC+2, Cédric Krier va escriure: > On 28/05/13 13:19 +0200, Albert Cervera i Areny wrote: > > Several months ago there was a discussion [1] where it was justified > > the link between analytics and accounting. There I agreed with this > > need but I have somewhat changed my view on that. > > > > Some background to justify why having analytics linked to accounting > > is not the best option for all use cases: > > > > Soon after that discussion we had a requirement for managing budgets > > with analytics. A public foundation who manages public and private > > funds needed to have a robust system to ensure the money spent on a > > given project did not exceed the funds. Analytics (with a budget > > management module) are appropriate for that, but one needs to ensure > > that purchase orders are treated as committed budget, even if there > > has not been any accounting moves. > > > > At the same time, one needs to ensure that the comparison between > > accounting profit & loss report and analytics is correct and that can > > only happen if analytics have their move in accounting. > > > > Our solution with the unnamed software was to: > > - Create analytic moves unlinked from accounting on purchases and sales. > > - Ensure that move lines of non profit & loss move lines have NO analytic moves. > > - Ensure that ALL move lines of profit & loss move lines DO have > > analytic moves and that analytic and accounting amounts match. > > - When opening the analytic plan (in the wizard), allow the user to > > show only aggregated information of analytic moves that have linked > > accounting: this way it is possible to ensure that analytic and > > accounting profit & loss match. > > - Add a simple way to find out which analytic moves do not have linked > > accounting lines with a filter. > > For me, including sale or purchase order (not yet invoiced) looks like a > kind of forecast. Why not just include them within a report (SQL view)? > Or create the invoice earlier in the purchase/sale process and have the > invoice create draft move (like when validate a supplier invoice) on > which you will have your "draft" analytic move.
Creating the invoice earlier is not appropriate because invoice moves should be create at the right time in accounting. We cannot say in the official accounting that we owe money to somebody when it is not true. > > Another demand, from another company, has been the creation of > > analytic lines when stocks are moved from certain locations and > > explicitly without moves on accounting. In this case they treat > > several locations (farms and animal feed factories) as independent and > > each move from one location to another is considered as an internal > > sale in analytic accounting at cost price. As said, in this case, > > there's never a related accounting move. > > Still possible to just create a null move for that a little bit like > account_stock_continental. This is what I proposed to the accountant but he simply does not want to. The reason is that he does not want to mix their analytic needs with official accounting which is subject to inspection by tax authorities. This sounds like "I'm going to cheat" but it really is not the case, at least for this customer. It is more a need for a separating two things that simply do not always need to go together.
