This discussion is archived
1 Reply Latest reply: Jul 25, 2012 9:19 AM by 949114 RSS

Strategy for Prosight end of Financial Year rollover.

814706 Newbie
Currently Being Moderated
Hi

I have inherited a prosight instance and I am just getting my head around the end of financial year process for it.

Currently, the financial categories (budgets, actuals, forecasts) are Current Year (CY), CY+1, CY+2, etc. So at the end of the financial year they have been exporting their financial data and moving CY into Previous years and CY+1 into CY and so on - then importing that data back into the database.

This approach means that all scorecards, tables, dashboards and forms can be left as is and after the financial year roll over they will still display the current (new) financial year, however, the drawback is that if you then trend those categories they only make sense up to the most recent financial year roll over. Beyond that you are looking at the wrong years data.

I am thinking of changing the structure of the database to capture financial year data in FY11, FY12, FY13 categories to resolve this. However, then at the end of the financial year I would have to review and update every scorecard, table, dashboard and form so it shows the correct period (as we have a 5 year reporting window).


Do you, or others have a different strategy to handeling the end of financial year rollover to these two options above ??
  • 1. Re: Strategy for Prosight end of Financial Year rollover.
    949114 Newbie
    Currently Being Moderated
    Hi.

    Hope this isn't too late to help...

    We have the exact opposite situation here. Our consultants designed our OPPM capital planning software to use hard-coded years (FY13, FY14, etc.), which required ridiculous amounts of billable hours for re-doing all the forms, scorecards, etc. every year during our "annual transition" to the next fiscal request cycle. When upper management decided to use COGNOS for reporting (since native OPPM output is so poor), and wanted historical reporting to past year's data, it was decided to use generic naming, with different tables using the same structure but including a field to denote which budget year to which it refers. This is MUCH better all around, and although it is expensive this cycle to make the change, it will save us a small fortune over time from no longer needing to re-work all the forms, scorecards, dashboards, etc. every year. And the COGNOS reports can just look-up the reference year to compare between any two or more sets of data for trends, comparitive reports, etc.

    So, my advice is: DON'T CHANGE WHAT YOU HAVE! Good luck.

    Rob

Legend

  • Correct Answers - 10 points
  • Helpful Answers - 5 points