Comments
More arguments:
Compliance and Auditing:
Supports compliance and auditing requirements by providing a holistic view of payables across legal entities, making it easier to ensure that all liabilities are accounted for and managed.
Customized Reporting:
The ability to filter by legal entities allows for customized reporting, enabling stakeholders to focus on specific areas of interest or concern.
Risk Management:
Aids in identifying potential risk areas by highlighting legal entities with a high volume of outstanding payables, allowing for proactive risk management.
Resource Allocation:
Supports strategic resource allocation by enabling the finance team to identify where efforts should be concentrated for payment settlement.
Scalability:
As organizations grow and add more legal entities, having a cross-company report becomes increasingly important for maintaining oversight and control.
By implementing a vendor aging report that spans across various legal entities and includes filtering options, organizations can significantly enhance their financial management capabilities, making it easier to manage vendor relationships, comply with regulations, and make informed business decisions.
In Microsoft Dynamics 365 Finance and Operations (FO), having a cross-company Vendor Aging report can be immensely beneficial for organizations managing multiple legal entities or subsidiaries. Below are some arguments supporting the implementation of a cross-company vendor aging report with the ability to filter by legal entities:
Consolidated View:
Provides a consolidated view of outstanding payables across different legal entities, enabling a comprehensive understanding of the company's overall liabilities.
Enhanced Decision-Making:
Enables better decision-making by allowing management to see which legal entities have the most outstanding payables and allocate resources accordingly.
Streamlined Processes:
Streamlines the accounts payable process by reducing the time and effort required to consolidate data manually from different legal entities.
Improved Cash Flow Management:
Assists in managing cash flow more effectively by identifying which legal entities are due for payment and prioritizing payments accordingly.
Vendor Relationship Management:
Helps in maintaining healthy vendor relationships by ensuring timely payments and managing vendor expectations across different entities.
Efficiency and Productivity:
Increases efficiency and productivity by reducing the need to run separate reports for each legal entity and then manually consolidate the data.
Currently in F&SCM on quotes and orders, we can always search for a line item using the item code, the search name or the product name. We don't always remember what the codes for items are due to a very large product list but we do know what name the product has in the system and this is what we use most often when searching for the right items to add to our records.
The subscription billing billing schedule, when adding line items to the schedule, only allows us to search by the code or search name, not by product name.
Could we have the same functionality to be able to search by product name, on the billing schedule as we do on quotes and orders? This would make the searching for and adding lines in the billing schedule more user friendly.
Thank you
This would be so useful to see at a glance which lines on an order are deferred.
Currently with the revenue recognition module, we can see against the lines which lines have the revenue schedule applied and for what dates.
If we could have the same for subs billing functionality to be able to add fields to the lines to show the deferral and the dates please.
If 23.1.0.0 was broken and needed to be hotfixed (lets call it 23.1.1.0),
you don't want any new installs / upgrades to use 23.1.0.0.
This can be enforced in AppSource and if that's the case, it should also apply to the validation pipelines.
Why should the upgrade validation be against a version that no one can install / upgrade to?
Now if you need to backport the same hotfix from 23.1.1.0 to 23.0.x.x, you currently can't, because 23.0.x.x is (and will always be) validating against 23.1.0.0, a release that might have been corrupt but you have no control over, because it's stuck as the version the validation pipeline uses.
The only workaround for us is to always mark everything new as Obsolete-Pending, risking actual breaking changes, because we can't differentiate actual warnings from workaround-based warnings anymore. It also adds unnecessary noise to backports and I doubt this is where MS wants AppSource submissions to turn to.
I honestly think this is just an oversight / bug, rather than an idea / feature request - at least I hope the problem is clear.