A client wants to change the status of a particular dimension from "Not Used" or "Optional" to "Mandatory" for certain ledger accounts. These accounts are already in existence for a few years and have data in them. Some of the previous years are also closed. In this scenario, what can I do? I can change the Dimension status in tfgld008. But, what are the implications it will have. I know that it will work from the next entry onwards, but will there be any long term implications.

Also if we were to fill in a dummy value for the dimension directly in the table tfgld106 before making the modifications in the ledger accounts.. What happens then? will we be allowed to change the status of "Mandatory" through the front end then? Also what effect will this have in the years which are closed or finally closed? Please do reply urgently.

Regards

Sudarshan

The only implications that I can think of straight away, is that if there are any unfinalized transaction when you switch the dimension on then you may get errors when finalizing transactions.

Also, your reporting may look a bit strange. It's probably best to do a switch like this at the start of a new financial year.

http://www.baanboard.com/baanboard/showthread.php?s=&threadid=749

take a look at this thread.

hi Sudharsan,


I have learnt somewhere if all the transactions for the particular GL are finalized and posted one can change the Dimension usage from "Not Used" to "Optional" and if in "Optional" to "Mandatory" without any major or any far reaching consequences.

The best way is to copy the GL to a new GL code make convenient Dimension usage and block the old GL and update all sessions where this GL is used.
If this attracts any legal entity please inform the concerned external authorities for expediting the same.

This exercise is always better to be done at the end of a period or at the end of the Financial Year-End as rightly suggested by Maria.

regards

Sajit

Thanks a lot for the prompt replies friends. I think I will go with the method of using a new set of account codes to do the job.

In case, this is not possible at all then I will go the GTM way after ensuring that all the entries upto that date are closed and finalized.

bye and thanks a lot once again.

Sudarshan,

Creating new G/L accounts is the safe approach. Be very cautious about GTM because the issues go deeper than tfgld102/106.

The reason that Baan permits you to change from Not-Used to Optional or from Mandatory to Optional (not Optional to Mandatory) is to ensure referential integrity throughout the finance tables.

Other tables with data that is impacted include the various GLD history tables (tfgld202, tfgld204, tfgld205, tfgld206) and integration tables (tfgld410, tfgld417).

If a particular ledger/dimension combination was Not-Used, it can be changed to Optional because the lack of dimension code in combination with the ledger account in earlier transactions (gld200-series and gld400-series) is not inconsistent with the new "Optional" setting. Similarly, if you change from Mandatory to Optional, old history records that have a dimension code are not inconsistent with newer transactions that have no dimension.

If you were use GTM to change from Not-Used or Optional to Mandatory, from Mandatory to Not-Used, or (depending on data present) from Optional to Not-Used, historical records for reporting, inquiries, ledger/dimension rebuilds, etc may be inconsistent with the new settings.

With all that said, the complexity depends somewhat on your actual data. If little or no data was actually posted under the old set up, a change may be relatively simple. I seem to recall earlier threads that discussed this issue where members said they had written scripts to properly populate historical records in required tables. (But then, they say memory is the first thing to go.)

Scott Johnson

Scott,

Thanks for your advice. Actually, I had also come to the same conclusion that changing through GTM was not a very safe route to go.

Regarding the History tables, I think that if we run a ledger history rebuild, it should take care of the values in the history table. Of course, for the period in which data has already been entered, there is going to be a inconsistency in the reports based on the GL and those based on the Dimensions.

I agree with you with regard to the integration tables.

I have been getting similar advice from a lot of people and this tallies with my thinking that GTM should not be used to change the Master records in Baan.

Once again, thanks a lot.

Sudarshan

Sudarshan,

I agree 100% with Scott - GTM can destroy the integrity of the data of your history tables in this instance. You are wise to create new account numbers with the dimension option setting that you want. We were strongly advised against doing this type of GTM by our Baan Consultant.

Also, if your years are closed, you will not be able to rebuild the general ledger.

Better to be safe than sorry in this instance.

Regards,
Linda