Posts

Posts

  • Ashok
    Suggested Buyer vs Assigned Buyer on a Requisition
    Topic posted November 30, 2019 by AshokBlack Diamond: 60,000+ Points, tagged FAQ, Requisition Processing, Setup in Procurement > Self Service Procurement public
    Title:
    Suggested Buyer vs Assigned Buyer on a Requisition
    Summary:
    Suggested Buyer vs Assigned Buyer on a Requisition
    Content:

    Support

    This is an article that I expect will serve a helpful purpose when you triage customer issues relating to the attribute Suggested Buyer or Buyer on a requisition line. Here are some salient aspects for consideration:

    1. Buyer is an attribute whose primary purpose is to determine who processes the purchase order that is created for the requisition in question

    2. Fusion Self Service Procurement allows users to specify a suggested buyer (through additional personalization) or has the system derive one if the user does not wish to specify one explicitly. The former is called 'Suggested Buyer' and the latter 'Buyer' to distinguish it for the user on the UI

    3. A buyer is derived automatically not on saving a requisition but on submitting the requisition. The system calls the buyer assignment rules to determine if a valid buyer can be assigned (called Assigned Buyer in the system and populated in the Buyer field on the UI). Obviously, if the buyer assignment rules do not produce a valid buyer, there are other derivation steps that have been detailed in a previous article (https://cloudcustomerconnect.oracle.com/posts/aae98157bc)

    4. User can manually provide a buyer to the requisition line (Suggested Buyer). But the field must first be personalized into the Edit Requisition page. Now, if the user enters the Suggested Buyer in the Enter Requisition Line page ,obviously, this value will carry to the Edit Requisition flow

    5. When you copy a requisition, the original buyer value is always retained unless it is invalid at the time of processing the new requisition

    6. A Suggested Buyer is just that - a suggestion from the Requester. While in most cases, the recommendation comes out of  specific knowledge at the behest of the requester, the buyer still has to determine if this is the right person to process these requisitions

    7. If the customers ask why this is still only available through personalization, it is worth understanding the design principle: Most requesters are not interested or qualified to propose a buyer that ought to process their requisitions. The buying organization determines this through various factors. By default, there is limited value in allowing this field to be exposed to all requesters and perhaps creating an impression that a value is expected to be provided when the system has a myriad set of computing algorithms to figure this out on its own. Hence, for those exception scenarios where the requester is qualified to suggest a valid buyer, the additional bit of effort to expose the attribute is expected.

    8. Additional articles of value: 

    https://cloudcustomerconnect.oracle.com/posts/d4f89f0e38

  • Ashok
    Configure Implicit Data Access to Requisitioning BUs for...5.0
    Topic posted November 30, 2019 by AshokBlack Diamond: 60,000+ Points, tagged How-To, Setup in Procurement > Self Service Procurement public
    Title:
    Configure Implicit Data Access to Requisitioning BUs for Users
    Summary:
    How to enable implicit data security and access to Requisitioning BUs to Users
    Content:

    Context:

    In a recent customer post, this question was raised. This document prescribes the steps required to enable implicit data security policies to users. The key here is to note that this configuration works really well when such access is non-discretionary, i.e. the users in question must have access to the entities as a matter of policy and not by choice.

    The document provides a step by step configuration for one specific example that you can then leverage to implement requirements that are specific to your organization.

    Business Requirement:

    For example, if every user with the US business unit in primary worker assignment can manage requisitions in both the US and Canada business units without discretion, it is more efficient to provide access to the Canada business unit by configuring a new data security policy rather than creating an explicit assignment for every user in the US business unit.

  • Sian Summers
    Custom BI Webcat Reporting Duty5
    Topic posted November 29, 2019 by Sian SummersRed Ribbon: 250+ Points, tagged Fusion, OTBI, Public Sector, Report Delivery, Reports, Setup, Setup/Administration, Tip in General OBIEE public
    Title:
    Custom BI Webcat Reporting Duty
    Summary:
    Trying to hide seeded reporting folders and understand the updated options within 19D
    Content:

    We are keen to have the option to hide seeded folders from users. Changing permissions on seeded report folders comes up with the following error:

    "In-place customizations are not allowed on factory delivered content. Save your customizations in /shared/custom"

    ***

    We were really pleased therefore to see the following release notes for 19D:

    https://www.oracle.com/webfolder/technetwork/tutorials/tutorial/cloud/r13/wn/common/releases/19D/19D-common-wn.htm#F10098

    However, I am trying to understand how it works. Has anyone used these roles yet?

    The BI Consumer role still has traverse permissions to these seeded folders, therefore struggling to understand how assigning another role counters this. 

    Also - the Custom BI Webcat Reporting Duty, which is the Duty Role that it is advised we edit put into a role and assign, is unable to be copied. Is this what people would expect?

    If anyone can give any further detail on how this works, it would be much appreciate. Keen to lock down some of these seeded reporting folders.

    Kind regards,

    Sian.

     

     

    Version:
    19D
  • Ivan Pena
    How to disable approved supplier validation for BPA
    Topic posted November 29, 2019 by Ivan PenaBronze Crown: 15,000+ Points, tagged Agreements, Approved Supplier List, How-To, Orders, Setup in Procurement > Purchasing public
    Title:
    How to disable approved supplier validation for BPA
    Content:

    Business Case

    You want to create a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) that include items for which Use Approved Supplier is enabled, and then use it to create approved supplier lists (ASLs) for those items. However, you are not able to submit the BPA for approval because the supplier is not on the approved supplier list for those items. 

     

    Solution

    You can use the profile option "PO_ASL_VALIDATION_FOR_BPA" to skip the blanket purchase agreement submission validation that verifies if the supplier is approved for all items that use approved supplier.

    When this option is disabled, the application will no longer prevent you submitting for approval a BPA that includes items that use approved supplier, even if the supplier is not yet in the list approved suppliers for those items. You can then add the new agreement to an existing ASL or create a new ASL from the agreement using the ESS process "Create ASL Entries."

    How to set up

    You can go to Manage Purchasing Profile Options, select the profile option PO_ASL_VALIDATION_FOR_BPA, set the value to No, and save. Refer to the screenshot below for an example. 

    Image:
  • Ivan Pena
    How to enable sourcing of purchase orders to future dated...15.0
    Topic posted November 29, 2019 by Ivan PenaBronze Crown: 15,000+ Points, tagged Agreements, How-To, Orders, Setup in Procurement > Purchasing public
    Title:
    How to enable sourcing of purchase orders to future dated agreements
    Content:

    Business case

    When a purchase order sourced  to a purchasing agreement is submitted for approval, Oracle Purchasing Cloud validates that the requested delivery dates on the purchase order schedules fall between the effective dates of the source agreement. Instead, you may want to enable the use of future dated agreements, so that a purchase order can be sourced to a purchase agreement that is not yet effective.

    Solution

    You can use the profile option "PO_REQUESTED_DELIVERY_DATE_VALIDATION" to relax the validation that the requested delivery date must be within the source agreement's effective dates. This applies to both contract purchase agreements (CPA) and blanket purchase agreements (BPA.)

    When this profile option is disabled (i.e, set to No) you can allow submission of purchase orders having purchase order schedules with requested delivery date before the source agreement's start date. 

    Example

    You have created the  following agreements for the same supplier, item, and UOM:

    Agreement Number
    Start Date
    End Date
    123 01-JAN-2019 30-JUN-2019
    456 01-JUL-2019 31-DEC-2019

    A PO with requested delivery date of 01-AUG-2019 will fail submission validation if agreement 123 is referenced, regardless of the profile option setting.

    A PO with requested delivery date of 01-MAY-2019 will fail submission validation if agreement  456 is referenced and the profile option is enabled, but will pass submission validation if the option is disabled. 

    How to set up

    You can go to the Manage Purchasing Profile Options page, select the profile option PO_REQUESTED_DELIVERY_DATE_VALIDATION, set the value to No, and save. Refer to the screenshot for an example. 

    Image:
  • hyakutake tomoyuki
    How to register a supplier so they can create POs but not...3
    Topic posted November 28, 2019 by hyakutake tomoyukiGreen Ribbon: 100+ Points, tagged Setup, Supplier Registration in Procurement > Supplier Management public
    Title:
    How to register a supplier so they can create POs but not negotiate with the supplier
    Summary:
    How to register a supplier so they can create POs but not negotiate with the supplier
    Content:

    My ct don't want to allow to create a negotiation with the supplier, but they want to allow to create POs for the supplier.

    How can we enable this requirement?

    I have unchecked address purpose "RFQ or Bidding", but it did not work. I still can select the supplier site at RFQ supplier tab after unchecked it.

    Is there a way to enable this requirement?

    == Business Background ==

    It is little bit complicated to explain. Simply put, it is like this.

    1. Want to create Direct Material POs for the supplier via interface from the external system.

    2. Don't want to allow users to create Indirect Material POs for the supplier.

    .

    In ct's business flow, all non catalog item POs are created via Negotiations.

    And so, if we can enable this topic requirement, that is enough for them.

  • Jesus Escobar
    Harmonized Tariff in PIM with out EFF2
    Topic posted November 28, 2019 by Jesus EscobarBronze Medal: 1,250+ Points, tagged Inventory Cloud, Product Hub, Setup in Product Lifecycle Management > Product Master Data Management public
    Title:
    Harmonized Tariff in PIM with out EFF
    Summary:
    Harmonized Tariff in PIM with out EFF
    Content:

    Hi All 

    Is posible set the Harmonized Tariff in PIM  with out EFF and with out PUH?
    Version:
    19C (11.13.19.07.0)
  • Rommel Ben Vasquez
    What are appropriate item attribute values for a valid kit...
    Topic posted November 28, 2019 by Rommel Ben VasquezBronze Medal: 1,250+ Points, tagged Product Hub, SCM, Setup in Product Lifecycle Management > Product Master Data Management public
    Title:
    What are appropriate item attribute values for a valid kit model? We found some conflicting and confusing attribute values
    Content:

    We have defined a kit model with components using the Kit Template and we found some conflicting and confusing attributes.

    Below is what we have encountered during item creation using the template for kit

    Error
    Only Shippable Items can be present in an Internal Order. (EGP-2775320)
    Error
    Pick Components cannot be set to Yes when Internal Ordered is set to Yes. (EGP-2775251)

    Furthermore, we are confused with the inventory item attributes:

    Inventory Item: Yes
    Stocked: Yes >>> In my understanding, we are not stocking or tracking inventory for a Kit Model? right?
    Transaction Enabled: Yes >>> This make the Kit Item model enabled for inventory transactions ie. Miscellaneous receipt which should not be the case, right?
    Reservable: Yes >>> The same, do we expect this attribute to be enabled for a Kit Item?

    In addition, we found under Manufacturing the following Costing related attributes. Are these expected for a Kit Item? Do we track cost for the Kit Item. We thought that we shipped out the components of the Kit Item based on the Item Structure and these are costed. Do we expect cost from the components to roll-up to the Kit Model. Is this possible?

    Costing Enabled: Yes
    Include in Rollup: Yes

    Hope anyone could shed light on these on how we supposed to create and set the attribute for a Kit Item. Thanks

    Image:
  • Puneet Pareek
    Multiple Natural Account Segment Selection In Charge Account...65.0
    Topic posted November 28, 2019 by Puneet PareekGreen Ribbon: 100+ Points, tagged Create Requisition, FAQ, How-To, Requisition Import, Requisition Processing, Setup, Tip, White Paper in Procurement > Self Service Procurement public
    Title:
    Multiple Natural Account Segment Selection In Charge Account based on the Purchase Category in Requisition Screen
    Summary:
    Restrict the GL Code - Natural Account Segment while punching a requisition based on the Purchase Category selected
    Content:

    Hi All,

    We have a business requirement to manually select the Natural Account manually based on the Purchase Category. For example Category X --> 4 Natural Accounts available for selection; Category Y --> 3 Natural Accounts. 

    Currently, we already have two segments open for edits via DFF Functionality wherein the DFF values captured by requester is fed as a source to charge/expense accounts. Similarly business wants to add one more DFF Attribute for Natural Accounts which should display only GL Codes/Accounts which are mapped to that category and should be open for selection by the requester.

    Has anyone faced this business scenario or implemented such solution before ? It would be great if we can get some pointers on the same.

    If we take the DFF Approach, i am sceptical if Natural Account valueset can be generated based on the category being selected in the purchase requisition page.

    Regards,

    Puneet

    Version:
    19D
  • hyakutake tomoyuki
    Is it required HCM subscription to utilize "Position...Answered4
    Topic posted November 27, 2019 by hyakutake tomoyukiGreen Ribbon: 100+ Points, tagged Approvals, Setup in Procurement > Self Service Procurement public
    Title:
    Is it required HCM subscription to utilize "Position Hierarchy" functionality in approval workflow?
    Summary:
    Is it required HCM subscription to utilize "Position Hierarchy" functionality in approval workflow?
    Content:

    Is it required HCM subscription to utilize "Position Hierarchy" functionality in approval workflow? 

    I know the following Doc. But it is not clearly described about it.

    So, can we use "Position Hierarchy" functionality without HCM subscription?

    Minimum HCM Setup Required For Non-HCM Implementation And Procurement (Doc ID 1947052.1)

    If it is allowed to utilize "Position Hierarchy" functionality without HCM subscription,

    are there any latest how-to doc for setup the custom roles?

    Because Doc ID 1947052.1 is showing old UI.