1) When the journal has been created (it has to be approved before it can be exported)
2) When the journal has been exported (this adds additional record restrictions even though the only thing has changed is that the file has been exported)
Ideally only 1 approval should be required, unless of course the user makes subsequent changes to the journal, other than just exporting the BACS file.
Comments
We agreed that 'Once a batch has been approved you cannot make any changes to the amounts on the line anyway without gaining re-approval, which is what you would expect as it prevents a users from adjusting values and exporting the BACS file with amounts that were not approved. However, since the protection above is in place, there seems no benefit in then adding another approval requirement after the BACS file has been created, this is just adding delays and inefficiency into the process. This is just not required and provides no additional financial control protection whilst frustrating users!!'It certainly will be frustrating and time consuming !
Category: Financial Management
We are in the process of migrating to the cloud, this additional approval step (not in V14) does not add any additional control to the process, it does however cause delays in posting. Can this kindly be reviewed?
Category: Financial Management
Would it be possible to add a status to the workflow condition so you can exclude this record restriction applied after the BACS import from the workflow conditions. - Therefore it would bypass the workflow.As per the comments prior to mine - There's no benefit to the operation as it stands and it's causing an additional unnecessary step to this process of posting a payment journal.
Category: Financial Management
Once a batch has been approved you cannot make any changes to the amounts on the line anyway without gaining re-approval, which is what you would expect as it prevents a users from adjusting values and exporting the BACS file with amounts that were not approved. However, since the protection above is in place, there seems no benefit in then adding another approval requirement after the BACS file has been created, this is just adding delays and inefficiency into the process. This is just not required and provides no additional financial control protection whilst frustrating users!!
Category: Financial Management
Also experiencing this issue for customers using W1.
Category: Financial Management
Business Central Team (administrator)
Thank you for this suggestion! Currently this is not on our roadmap. We are tracking this idea and if it gathers more votes and comments we will consider it in the future. Best regards, Business Central Team