Skip to Content

New Parallel Valuation Solution for Asset Accounting

SAP released EhP7 for ERP 6.0 back in August 2013 and followed up with SP02 a few months later in November.  Within that support pack, a new business function (FIN_AA_PARALLEL_VAL) was included that delivers a new solution to account for parallel valuations in Asset Accounting (FI-AA).

Since the NewGL was released with mySAP ERP 2004 the area in FICO that was most impacted and had the hardest design decisions to make, other than the GL iteself, was FI-AA.  A typical solution involved new depreciation areas to map values for the new ledgers.  Not a big deal.  But we also had to setup delta areas and periodic postings to the GL.  This was particularly troublesome because delta areas were now involved in the posting process and played a far bigger role in tracking values then they had in the past.  Posting periodically to the GL isn’t as convienent or timely as posting in realtime and could lead to errors at month/year end if not properly administered.

This new solution alleviates these requirements by delivering a new posting process.  There are other improvements too such as realtime postings per ledger group, more flexibility about the leading valuation, and a general simplification of the depreciation area setup.  But the point of this blog isn’t to cover the details of the new solution or how to do it… maybe I (or someone else in the community) will get to that in due time.  The point of this blog is to bring to your attention 1) that the solution exists, and 2) that you need read up on it.

Refrencing OSS Note 1776828:

As of SAP Enhancement Package 7 for SAP ERP 6.0 (SAP_APPL 617), the business function FI-AA, Parallel Valuation (FIN_AA_PARALLEL_VAL) and therefore the new Asset Accounting, is available. A business function is never active in the standard delivery. This means that the new Asset Accounting is not active for both new and existing customers.

i.e., here it is but it’s not yet turned on.  Now, the good part.

We recommend that customers who want to implement Asset Accounting for the first time do not first implement the classical Asset Accounting, but instead implement the new Asset Accounting straight away. New customers should therefore activate the business function FIN_AA_PARALLEL_VAL.

For customers who have previously used classical Asset Accounting, we recommend that you check whether the new Asset Accounting (and therefore activation of the business function FIN_AA_PARALLEL_VAL) is feasible for you.

I’ve worked with SAP since 1996 and read several thousand OSS Notes since then.  After all that time I’ve come to appreciate direct and clear language like this.  “We recommend… New customers should… activate the business function FIN_AA_PARALLEL_VAL”  Existing customers should “check whether the new Asset Accounting… is feasible for you”.  There is no way to mis-interpret those statements.  I love direction like this from SAP.

My opinion?  If you’re a new customer and you don’t activate this then you’re making a mistake and potentially putting your solution at risk.  How much of a risk is open to debate but it’s rarely a good idea to go with an older approach when you’re first implementing a particular module.  You’re creating a solution based on functionality that SAP has moved on from. What happens if you reach a limitation in your solution that FIN_AA_PARALLEL_VAL addresses and report it to SAP?  More than likely their response will be “Please look at OSS Note 1776828 and activate the FIN_AA_PARALLEL_VAL business function”.  Doing that after go-live is it’s own (mini-)project.  Good luck with that.

You must be Logged on to comment or reply to a post.
  • Hi Nathan,

    Another nice blog which I have been waiting for long to see from you.

    I agree with you that it is always better to implement a newer solution from SAP rather than choosing the classic one and then going for another mini project to upgrade unless there is a strong viable business reason for doing so.  Same like whether classic GL or New GL.

    After the emergence of enhancements concept, more and more new business functions are made available my SAP to satisfy different business requirements.  These need to be activated on need basis.  It seems FIN_AA_PARALLEL_VAL is another such great piece of solution from SAP which need to be read up completely so that it can be suggested to the clients properly.

    Thanks for heads up on this and I will go through this business function and expect another great blog on this in detail.



    • Hi Nathan,or any other experts,

      Need one clarification on using different fiscal year variants for Leading(0L)&non Leading(NL) Ledgers and impact on Fixed Asset Accounting.If I use say V6(Jan2013-Dec2013) for Leading Ledger and April2013-March2014 for non leading Ledger,(local GAAP)-please clarify the following.

      1.Does Asset Accounting gives all standard reports as expected in both(Leading&Locals) the Depreciation areas?Do we need to any settings specially for in the above scenario?(I am assuming point#4 given below may not help for this as system gives an error if both the fiscal year variants have different start&end dates)

      2.How is Year end in Asset Accounting handled?If I close the year end in Asset Accounting for Company Code as per Leading Ledger i.e say by Dec 2013,can I still post the asset entries in non leading ledger?Because Financial year for Leading ledger will be 2014 and non leading will be still 2013(in Jan2014).

      3.I am aware SAP has some restrictions way back in 2005-2007 (SAP note 844029) for different fiscal year variants in Leading&Non Leading Ledgers,Does SAP come out with any solution later?

      4.What is the exact use of the settings at  Asset Accounting>>Valuation>>>Fiscal year>>Fiscal year variants  at company code level or Depreciation area level?My understanding here is,they are not meant for using different fiscal year variant with different start&end dates but they are meant for using different fiscal year variant with same START&END DATES  and have different number of posting periods i.e 1 can have 12 and other can have 13.

      Please can you give your comments?



  • Thanks Nathan for this info, just one question, does parallel valuation refer the ASKB transaction? Or does it have any equivalent in New GL? I happen to work on Classical GL.