Nick Smith EVP

Because Management Reporter Reports are used to report financial data and in most cases would be reviewed for monitoring control purposes, they should be in-scope for a change management process in most financially significant companies with audit requirements; especially SOX compliant companies. For that reason, I would like to suggest that an audit trail be established for changes made to report components within management reporter. With those changes, financial management can more easily review and validate that changes are appropriate and supported.

When generating payment proposal, a new warning message is showed that we users didn’t face before, it has been introduced with 10.0.11 version. “Vendor XXXX X is stopped for All, Payment and is consequently not included in the payment proposal.” Issues with this message are as follows: 1. The error message is displayed for vendors with no open transactions. 2. No option to exclude vendors with on-hold for payment / all., the field on-hold does not appear in filtration criteria however it does with sorting. 3. Vendor message is shown for first vendor only and not providing info about others. And based on this in case vendor with open transactions and set on hold and has actually been excluded from payment proposal message will ignore that and show first vendor in on hold list. Proposed suggestions are as follows: 1. System should not give a notification if the vendor does not have any payments that would qualify for the proposal. 2. Instead of a pop up notification, the error can be provided under notification bar to include all the vendors and number of invoices which have been excluded from the proposal qualifications due to their on-hold status.

We would like to see the ability to select and apply specific hotfixes brought back instead of having to take a full quality update with a collection of hotfixues included. This approach, coupled with the fact that there is no export option or way to easily create an excel checklist of the hotfixes, their descriptions, and the modules/localizations to which they apply make it difficult to perform additional regression testing in areas where impacts are expected, or to document why regression testing over a specific hotfix may not be necessary for change management documentation purposes.

We would like to see the addition of a company specific customer/vendor search name included similar to the configuration that is available for Products/Items. When Customers or Vendors are released to multiple companies, the search name that is released is the globally configured search name from the Global Address Book. We have around 30 major legal entities spread across around 25 countries that will share most of the same customers and many of the same vendors and it is extremely difficult to configure search names in a way that makes order entry efficient for all companies. Allowing a company specific search name would greatly improve the efficiency of our deployments and improve the user experience in their day to day transactional processing.

Allow for Company specific search names for Global Address Book roles (customer/vendor/worker/competitor/legal entity) like what is offered for Products/Released Products. When setting up a Party in the Global Address Book, it would be nice if the default search name can be entered which would be auto-released when adding customers/vendors/workers/competitors. Then, it would be really great if, when released as a particular role, the search name could be edited on the role record within the specific company and not update and overwrite the search name at the Global Address Book Level and overwrite the search name on other previously released Party roles. If a Party role is created directly on a form such as All Vendors or All Customers, the search name could be defaulted from the GAB if the Party already exists, or could be used to populate the default Search Name at the GAB level if no existing Party already exists or is not selected in the pop-up party listing.

Please fix the bug in the Security Audit Trail that incorrectly logs security configuration changes that are performed either through Microsoft Maintenance Security Updates or Upgrades. These changes should be logged to the -System- user. We have seen and reported via LCS instances where a change that could not have been made in the UI was tagged to our Security Administrator because he updated the role after the Microsoft Security Update had been applied. Because of this bug, the audit trail cannot be effectively relied upon for reviewing security changes and ensuring that they are properly requested, approved, and executed. This has significant implications for Companies that need to ensure the effectiveness of IT General Controls for SOX purposes.

Microsoft provided a fix for reported issue 482832 which caused the Accounting Source Explorer to Summarize Voucher records rather than displaying them in detail after Version 10.0.12. This was reported and logged as Issue 512538 - which has a disposition of Microsoft as working by design. We believe this functionality should be reversed/fixed and the Accounting Source Explorer should continue to report voucher records in detail.