1 / 14

General Ledger Re-design

This presentation by Anne Shrubshall discusses the redesign of the General Ledger structure, addressing the current limitations and the need for enhanced coding flexibility. Key topics include the reasons for change, the introduction of mandatory and optional segments, and examples of new segment configurations. A detailed timeline for the implementation phases is also provided, alongside a call for suggestions from the audience. The project aims for a go-live date of August 1, 2009, emphasizing broad consultation and careful planning.

venus-pugh
Télécharger la présentation

General Ledger Re-design

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. General Ledger Re-design Presenter: Anne Shrubshall Date: 18th March 2008

  2. Existing code structure Reasons to change Drawbacks New segments (1) New segments (2) Mandatory segments Optional segments Examples Timescales Suggestions Project Schedule Agenda

  3. 1-AWRB3047-50100 Objective “Specific” “Unit” Dept Funding Source Objective “Group” Existing code structure

  4. Reasons to change Two segments not flexible enough TRAC (and other things) require more in-depth cost analysis Additional segments needed Need to implement new coding structure before we consider replacing Aptos

  5. Drawbacks • “Unit” is non-standard:- • LDAP, AltaHR, SITS & Aptos all use different • Two segments is too inflexible • Other methods (eg. Trx Analysis) are unreliable • Cost Centre contains too much data • Detail Code is used inconsistently

  6. New segment options (1) Unit Department Funding source? Activity TB Type – I&E or BS Nominal code

  7. New segment options (2) Project Sponsor “type” – SPO/OSR MIR reporting “group” Published a/cs reporting “group” HESA category Other?

  8. Mandatory Segments Segment Format Explanation UNIT A99 Similar to the first two digits of the current Cost Centre, but separate and more flexible. DEPT XXX Similar to the last digit of the current Cost Centre, but separate and more flexible. ACT 99 Denoting an activity or type. SUBCODE 999 Subjective code

  9. Optional Segments Segment Format Explanation FUND AA Similar to the third digit of the current Cost Centre, but separate and more flexible. This would denote a special funding source, other than “recurrent allocation”. SPONSOR AX Denoting a research project sponsor type (only where the FUND denoted “externally funded”) PROJECT XXX9999 Denoting a project number

  10. Examples 1-A01-ENG-06-504 which might mean: Exeter-SALL-English-Conferences-Air Fares 1-A01-ENG-03-504-A011049-EF-E1 which might mean: Exeter-SALL-English-Research-Air Fares-Project Number A011049 -Externally Funded-By the European Commission (Note: this is SALL project # 1049 – there may be other projects numbered 1049, but they will have different UNIT prefixes)

  11. Timescales Project underway now Your suggestions awaited Very wide consultation Go live from 1-August-2009

  12. Your suggestionshttps://survey.ex.ac.uk/gl-redesign

  13. Schedule Phase 1 – Consultation/Data collection. 30-Sep-08 Phase 2 – Business planning templates. 31-Dec-08 Phase 3 – Interfaces. 31-Jul-09 Phase 4 – Data entry. 31-Jul-09 Phase 5 – Training. 31-Jul-09 Phase 6 – Reporting. 31-Jul-09 Phase 7 – Post-implementation review. 31-Jan-10

  14. Thank you – any questions?

More Related