Skip to main content

Notifications

Announcements

No record found.

Community site session details

Community site session details

Session Id :
Microsoft Dynamics GP (Archived)

GP 2010 R2 - Analytical Accounting - Tree Node vs. Dimension

(0) ShareShare
ReportReport
Posted on by

Hello

I am new to Analytical Accounting, and we are looking to restructure our chart of accounts due to business changes.  I took an online course (Microsoft) on Analytical Accounting, but I'm still not clear on how Trees / Nodes differ from Dimensions / Codes. 

In a test environment, for example, I configured a Transaction Dimension called Departments, then Codes called Accounting & Finance, Service, Sales, and IT.   Then, I created - Under the Account Tree, a Node structure of the same thing.  Is this necessary?  Or redundant?  Or can I use Tree to slice and dice the data a different way? 

Any examples would be really helpful.  I could incorporate all of this into the chart, but I'd like to see if Analytical Accounting will work for us.

 

thanks!

*This post is locked for comments

  • Re: GP 2010 R2 - Analytical Accounting - Tree Node vs. Dimension

    Hi Mohammad.

    I have configured Analytical Accounting in a test environment, and am working through the process to confirm it works as expected.  The only thing I'm not really that clear on is the Analytical Default User-Deinfed Fields Setup.  Why  - and when (for example) - would these fields be configured?  I seem to have enough information in the Transaction Dimension codes, but there must be a reason for these additional field types (Text fields, Date, Numeric, Checkbox).

    thanks!

    Mark

  • Re: GP 2010 R2 - Analytical Accounting - Tree Node vs. Dimension

    Mohammad - this is a great answer fromyou - thanks for taking the time to explain AA.  

    When I was initially thinking the configuration through,  I said to myself, it "appears" that we only need ONE account (no segments) and the rest of the detail can be "built" in dimensions.  Aka, one travel account, one dimension for department, 4 codes for the department.  And like you said, that eliminates a LOT of accounts depending on how many departments or "segements" - such as employees, project, etc.  

    On the history, that's just something we'll obviously have figure out how to report historically - might be manual for the first year after the AA implementation.

     

    thanks again

    Mark

  • Verified answer
    Re: GP 2010 R2 - Analytical Accounting - Tree Node vs. Dimension

    Thanks for your question, let's discuss your issues one by one:

    “What are the real advantages of using Analytical Accounting over using segments in a chart of accounts? I have configured many, many GP implementations in the past, and have always used the account structure for segmenting departments, cost centers, locations, etc. One of the nice features about the Dimensions is that they can be a Yes/No, which is helpful for one of the types of information we need to track.”

    Basically you need to keep in mind that nothing in AA cannot be done in dimensions, but it is a matter of how and what does it take, take the below scenario as an example:

    Lets say that you have 10 Expenses accounts need to be allocated over 10 cost centers, and one of the expenses accounts is related to “Cars” that requires 10 subaccounts to identify expense type and another 50 accounts to identify “Cars”, do the math and check how many accounts will need to be added to your chart in the following format:

    • Cost Center 1>> Expense Account 1>> Car 1 >> Oil Expenses

    • Cost Center 1>> Expense Account 1>> Car 1 >> Cleaning Expenses

    • Cost Center 1>> Expense Account 1>> Car 1 >> Maintenance Expenses

    • Cost Center 1>> Expense Account 1>> Car 2 >> Oil Expenses

    • Cost Center 1>> Expense Account 1>> Car 2 >> Cleaning Expenses

    • Cost Center 1>> Expense Account 1>> Car 2 >> Maintenance Expenses

    10 Expenses Accounts * 10 Cost Centers * 50 Cars * 10 Cars related Expenses Types= 50,000 Account! And calculate how much it takes to add a new expense type.

    In AA all what you have to do is the below:

    1. Add 10 Expenses accounts to your chart.

    2. Create Dimension for cars.

    3. Create Dimension for expenses types.

    4. Enjoy!

    5. Enjoy!

    6. Enjoy!

    This is the actual difference between traditional accounting and analytical accounting.

    “Additionally, if an organization has been using the same COA for many years, and we implement Analytical Accounting, and change the chart of accounts as well (using Professional Service Tools), doesn't that affect the ability to do historical comparative reporting? Some of the dimensions are brand new, so they are not really impacting historical comparative reporting.”

    Analytical accounting information will not be available for history, therefore you will not be able to generate reports for historical data.

  • Re: GP 2010 R2 - Analytical Accounting - Tree Node vs. Dimension

    Hello Mohammad:

    Thanks for your quick and accurate answer, and I wasn't sure about the "Trees", but it did seem a lot like FRx the more I thought about it.  

    What are the real advantages of using Analytical Accounting over using segments in a chart of accounts?  I have configured many, many GP implementations in the past, and have always used the account structure for segmenting departments, cost centers, locations, etc.  One of the nice features about the Dimensions is that they can be a Yes/No, which is helpful for one of the types of information we need to track.

    Additionally, if an organization has been using the same COA for many years, and we implement Analytical Accounting, and change the chart of accounts as well (using Professional Service Tools), doesn't that affect the ability to do historical comparative reporting?  Some of the dimensions are brand new, so they are not really impacting historical comparative reporting.

    thanks again!

  • Verified answer
    Re: GP 2010 R2 - Analytical Accounting - Tree Node vs. Dimension

    Actually what you did is right, Dimensions and Codes are used to hold transactions, while trees are use for reporting purposes.

    Lets say you had a request to generate a trial balance for your codes grouped by code/dimension, once you created the tree and linked the codes to the tree you will be able to generate such a report with the ability to have subtotals per tree node using multilevel query wizard.

Under review

Thank you for your reply! To ensure a great experience for everyone, your content is awaiting approval by our Community Managers. Please check back later.

Helpful resources

Quick Links

Daivat Vartak – Community Spotlight

We are honored to recognize Daivat Vartak as our March 2025 Community…

Announcing Our 2025 Season 1 Super Users!

A new season of Super Users has arrived, and we are so grateful for the daily…

Kudos to the February Top 10 Community Stars!

Thanks for all your good work in the Community!

Leaderboard

#1
André Arnaud de Calavon Profile Picture

André Arnaud de Cal... 292,516 Super User 2025 Season 1

#2
Martin Dráb Profile Picture

Martin Dráb 231,409 Most Valuable Professional

#3
nmaenpaa Profile Picture

nmaenpaa 101,156

Leaderboard

Featured topics

Product updates

Dynamics 365 release plans