Advanced 2nd Demo Q&A

Advanced 2nd Demo Questions and Answers
Click tabs to go to relevant sections
- AP.1 How do you attach a supplier invoice/credit pdf document to the corresponding AP transaction that was created by ACI / OCR / EDI/ Manual entry?
  The depositing of these scanned and verified images in the archive requires no manual intervention and is automatically handled by the V1 Archive solution. Images created by ACI/OCR/EDI/Manual Entry are stored in the V1 Archive, which utilises automated indexation routines to define and maintain the links between transactions entered onto the system and their respective electronic images. The Advanced CIBR real-time data processing routines are utilised by the system to ensure that transactions received via ACI, Capture and EDI routines are seamlessly processed immediately into the document archive. The key index fields used to identify, process and retrieve the electronic transactions are the transaction type, sub-ledger identifier and the system invoice reference.
- AP.2 AP approval of creation and changes to Bank Account details - What security options does the system have for the segregation of duty audit requirement?
  The security access settings and associated system controls fully support the ability for only certain designated individuals to access the screen that contains a suppliers bank account fields. To ensure that segregation of duties is maintained, the Finance Process Manager (FPM) e-Form definition capabilities provides a standard Supplier Amendment Form, which can be completed by users to request changes to the Supplier Master record (including the bank account number & sort-code). See screenshot below:

- AR.1 In the demo, the Manual Sales Invoice Request screen, the Customer field looked like a text field rather than a drop down list of pre-created and validated Customers? We need the AR transaction request to only show or enable search on valid Customers, pre-created with a valid Customer code.
  Apologies, in my demonstration example the field where DH was entered is not the customer account number it is merely an additional field where, for example, a customer contact name can be entered (the field may benefit from being renamed). This is shown in the screenshot below:
- The screenshot highlights the drop-down list of active customer accounts (the ‘Invoice To’ field), which can be searched upon using partial codes, names etc.
- The system also provides the users with the ability to complete a new customer account request form as per the screenshot below. Users are able to enter key customer details within the request form, which can be subject to workflow controlled review and approval routines prior to the account becoming live on the system:
- AR.2 Sales document Request approval - how can this be set up?
  The approval process for sales request documents is fully configurable by the Trust against its required approval process. The screenshot below displays the FPM e-Forms approval matrix definition capabilities that will be used to define and maintain the approval routines in relation to sales invoice requests. In this example the user has selected invoice value to be the driver for the approval process, which will in-turn be linked to approval groups to determine the most appropriate approver of the transaction being raised:
- It should also be noted that the e-Form invoice requests can be approved via the Air Approval App as per the screenshot below:
- AR.3 Sales Invoice Image – Is it possible to preview the image of an AR document prior to the invoice/credit request being posted on to the sub ledger / being sent to the customer?
  The invoice image facility is not currently provided against the Sales invoice request process. However, it should be noted that all the necessary detail on the sales invoice request is displayed in one screen within FPM, which ensures that users are already provided with the ability to view the relevant details in one place (see screenshot below). This approach greatly reduces the need for an invoice preview function.
- AR.4 Trade shift errors - will the fix be updated on both systems, eFinancial & Tradeshift?
  The system maintains a detailed log of all transmissions made to Tradeshift and clearly identifies those that were successful and those that failed the process. A screenshot of the log list is provided below:
- For those that failed, users have the ability to resubmit the file for processing.
  As part of the resubmission process, users are presented with the ability to amend the ‘their reference’ field, which is the most commonly identified error when running this process. Any other errors tend to be from the standing data i.e invalid VAT code or Orig ID, which can be amended in the eFinancials system & once updated the file can be resubmitted.
  Where an invoice in its entirety is deemed to be incorrect, a credit note will be processed via Tradeshift and the invoice reissued with the correct charge details.
- AR.5 Cash allocation - how it can be automated? We usually have 1 big cash receipt file to allocate (from bank). What rules can be set for automatic allocation?
  To automate the allocation of the large cash receipt file received from the bank, a tailored payment take-on interface will be provided as part of the implementation process that will meet the specific automated allocation/matching requirements of the Trust. The tailored interface will incorporate a range of validation logic checks and allocation rules which includes identifying automated match by valid combinations of: customer name, invoice/reference number, payment date/due date, amount etc. Additional allocation criteria can be incorporated into the payment matching interface as and when required by the Trust. Receipt processing interfaces of this nature are defined and maintained at all of our client sites. Where transactions received within the file cannot be auto assigned to a valid customer account, the system will be configured to post these transactions to an unallocated transaction account and handled as per the response provided to AR.6.
- AR.6 Unallocated cash - how best to deal with these? Once resolved, what are the steps and resulting posting/documents upon allocation?
  The system provides the sub-ledger transfers facility, which has been designed to specifically address the requirement of transferring payment details between customer accounts. An unallocated cash (temp) customer account will be created to capture any unidentified payments and post them onto the system awaiting further action. Once the correct customer account has been identified, the transfer facility will be used to reassign the payment from one account to the other where the allocation/matching process will be completed. This process does not involve the creation of credit notes as per the Trusts current procedures. The screenshot below is of the sub-ledger transfer screen, which displays the source/target customer account references, additional transaction references etc.
- AR.7 Where are the Debtor collector note fields? Can we report upon theses notes? eg: Diary entry fields
  The Debt Manager solution provides a graphical based view of the Trusts outstanding debt position. It can be accessed and reviewed by debt recovery staff in a variety of ways: by customer, by debt controller, income forecast, by type of transaction and by items in dispute. Debt Manager also provides an interactive diary function that allows users to enter and maintain details of customer contact & correspondence. To support the automated follow-up of diary tasks via workflow notification, action dates can be applied to each diary entry that will notify debt recovery staff when they need to perform a follow-up task with the customer. Using the diary entry capabilities in this way will support effective communication and ongoing dialogue with customers. The example screenshot below shows the diary entry capture screen:
- The screenshot below displays the chronological diary history, as well as the contact details ‘pop-up’.
  The Debt Manager diary data fields can be incorporated into a Business Objects universe for reporting and analysis purposes.
- AR.8 Debtor letters (reminders, dunning, demands) – how flexible are the templates to be amended? Are there multiple templates that can be attached to different level of communications? Is there an ability to intervene/ amend the wording of letters on an ad-hoc basis?
  Automated, fully customisable debt recovery reminder processing routines are provided as standard. Multiple reminder ‘collection templates’ are able to be defined and amended/maintained within the system. Where required, each recovery template could represent a different debt type and can support multiple levels (up to 9) of action ‘severity’ stages, which can be used to represent the different levels of communication to customers. Each reminder severity level represents an action point/stages within the collection template (e.g. issue first reminder letter, issue second reminder), plus further action points (eg: issue an internal memo to the relevant credit controller, instruct credit control staff to make a telephone call, notify legal department etc) An example dunning letter severity level setup screen is provided below:
- For each severity level, the user is able to define and maintain the frequency upon which the specific automated actions occur e.g. 1st reminder after 30 days, 2nd reminder 21 days later etc.
  The Trust is also provided with the flexibility to control other details such as the format and textual content of the letters/documents produced for each severity level ie: change the nature of the reminder letters if required (e.g. more gentler approach required due to customer circumstances)
  Prior to letters being sent to the customer, the text associated with the letter attached to the chosen severity level cannot be amended on an ad-hoc/individual basis. The letter template can be amended at ‘global’ level.
  Given the number of letter definitions and the levels per definition that could be assigned, we have found that clients use this to more tailor a specific style of letter against individual or groups of customers that may need more carefully worded documents and therefore do not necessitate intervention.

- Bank.1 Bank file formats – please provide a full listing of the Bank File Formats that can be accommodated, and the steps in performing Bank Rec.
  The Bank Reconciliation module enables the import of bank statement data from all bank providers on a regular basis, typically once if not twice a day, for which we have standard import routines. Royal Berkshire can either use our example file mappings or create their own variations. The system provides bank file formats for all of the recognised city banks including: Natwest, RBS, Lloyds, TSB, Halifax, Barclays, HSBC, Bank of Scotland, Co-op etc., all which support the direct import of bank transactions into the GL bank reconciliation module within the system. There are the following steps:
- Step 1:
  Electronic bank statements can be loaded into the system automatically via a scheduled import routine. An unlimited number of bank accounts can be set up on the system.
  Once imported, the user can run one of 2 auto-matching routines:
  Step 1a) - a ‘one to one’ match where the same value exists
  Step 1b) - a ‘many to many’ match where it will match one or more cashbook transactions to one or more Bank transactions.
  The system will 'auto-reconcile' where it finds a match using only unreconciled transactions.
  Step 2:
  Unreconciled transactions can be manually matched using the split screen capability as per the screenshot below:
- In the screenshot, the top half of the screen shows the transactions in the cashbook and the bottom half of the screen shows the bank transactions. Using this screen, users can select the relevant Cashbook Transaction and reconcile it manually to the Bank Transactions at the bottom.
  The journal button provides the ability to create journals dynamically when items from the bank statement have been identified as bank charges or interest etc.
  The system enables the production of reports showing both reconciled and unreconciled items in order to track progress and also archive items no longer needed.
- Bank.2 Please provide information on system reports / features that can aid in the regular cashflow management and forecasting (basing on bank balance, expected receipts and required payments)
  Standard AP/AR cashflow forecast reports are provided within the system that support the ability for users to define variable parameter driven criteria for the output of such reports i.e. # days, by sub-ledger/division etc. Details of the reports are as follows: ACTR54 Cashflow Forecast Report This report shows the forecast of payments due from customers / suppliers for invoices in the selected Sub-Ledger. It is analysed according to the ageing parameter specified. ACTRG4 Cross-Ledger Cashflow Report This report, which can be output to a spreadsheet file, lists the expected cash flow for the company as at a specified date. The report lists the expected inflows from the sales ledger, along with the expected outflows via the purchase ledger. Goods received not yet invoiced are included in the expected outflows, along with commitments. The net cash flow for the company is displayed, aged according to the parameters entered. The screenshots below are of the standard cashflow report:
- The following screenshot is of an example cashflow report that has been created within the Collaborative Planning solution, which is taking cashflow related data from the underlying finance system to produce an interactive report/enquiry screen:
- In addition, the Business Objects ad-hoc reporting function provides highly intuitive, user friendly web based report authoring and formatting facilities, enabling specified users to quickly author additional cashflow analysis reports based upon up-to-date transaction level data held within the AP module.

- CP/Rep.1 Please show how you would restrict to certain users only the ability to drill down on budget / report level that have sensitive data e.g: payroll info
  The underlying security access controls and settings within Collaborative Planning will ensure that users are only able to view the information to which they are entitled. This includes the ability to restrict users from accessing and viewing sensitive payroll and other data of a similarly confidential nature.
- The following options are available to the Trust when defining such controls:
  - Restrict user access by budget responsibility area (BRA) i.e. assign users with access to only certain cost centres and account codes.
  - Assign read-only or read-write data access permissions to ensure that only specified users are able to enter/edit data in relation to the above BRA’s. Full audit trail facilities are provided that track all amendments made within the system.
  - If any of the account codes have calculators deployed against them, users can be prevented from viewing these calculators. Alternatively, users can be provided with different views of the calculator i.e. some users will be able to view all details within the calculator (pay grade, salary details etc.), whilst others may only see certain fields within the calculator (less sensitive information: names, post etc.)
  The screenshot below provides an example of user access being restricted within a budget monitoring model to a single cost centre (001-Theatres):
- CP/Rep.2 Budget report can be set to run (when) and distributed (to whom) via BOXi? Not within CP?
  The system supports the ability to generate an unlimited number of budget setting, monitoring and forecasting reports from the core solution capabilities which includes Insight for Budget Managers, Collaborative Planning (CP) and Business Objects (BOXi).
- Low-level budget manager – Insight
  For lower-level budget holders who are responsible for one or two costs centres and only require limited access to their budget data, there is the Insight for Budget Managers dashboard. This capability enables budget managers to monitor and drill-down to their budgets in real-time comparing budget performance to actuals. Example screenshots are provided below:
- More Complex Users – CP
  Collaborative Planning (CP) was designed from the outset to provide budget managers i.e. non-finance service staff, with a one-stop-shop, self-service solution which allows them to intuitively manage and take responsibility for their own budgets. CP provides flexible online analysis through the use of web forms, which are definable by the user.
  Budget managers can easily drill through to underlying chart of account balances via user defined reporting hierarchies, through to detailed transaction history and associated document images held within the archive and to any paperclip attachments as shown in the following screenshots.
  A report scheduling facility is also provided within CP to automate output of budget setting, monitoring and forecasting reports, which emails the reports direct to the designated recipients.
  Screenshot 1 - Balances by subjective code for a detail or summary objective code:
- Screenshot 2 - Transactional analysis:

- FA.1 Fixed Asset verification process - Can this be handled electronically or can the existing manual process be improved upon?
  The Fixed Assets module provides dedicated Asset Count routines, which includes the ability to auto-generate asset verification reports and the on-line entry of asset verification details. Against each asset record, the Trust can assign a ‘responsible department’ code, which will be used as a basis to control and coordinate the asset verification process. List reports will be automatically output by the system based upon the responsible dept field, ensuring that the asset verification reports are distributed to the correct recipients. These individuals will be responsible for verifying the existence of the asset and providing the required responses back to the Asset accountant. A standard online asset verification entry screen is provided that supports the entry of the verified asset information onto the asset register. The screenshot below highlights the ‘responsible department’ field provided within the asset record:
- The screenshot below shows the request parameters for the asset verification reports, including the ‘responsible dept’ code:

- GL.1 How to best enable multiple entity access to one user to avoid people entering info in the wrong entity eg: AP, AR trans
  The ‘sub-ledger’ controls drive everything in relation to the recognition of and posting to the entities defined within the system. User access rights will be defined that fully control the entities/companies they will have access to. These controls ensure that a user does not require two separate logons to post transactions onto two separate entities. For example, when posting transactions via the sub-modules such as AP and AR, users are required to enter a sub-ledger code, which tells the system which entity the transaction is being posted to. The user may then enter additional transaction details onto the system, which includes GL coding information such as the cost centre code. If the user enters details of a cost centre code that does not belong to the previously entered sub-ledger entity, they are immediately informed of this error via on-screen notification messages, thus avoiding any mis-postings to the GL & associated entities.
- GL.2 Does the system allow for Journals to be approved and does this have workflow functionality to notify the Approver. Please provide an overview on this.
  Workflow based journal approval capabilities are provided within the system. At the point of creating a GL journal, a user is able to define the User ID of the person who is required to approve the journal transaction as per the example screenshot below:
- Approvers are notified via workflow messages (email, task manager etc.) that they are required to review and approve a journal entered onto the system. The underlying authorisation controls determine the ability for users to perform journal approvals, as well as being able to apply financial limits they are able to approve. The system provides segregation of duty controls that prevent users from creating and approving their own journals.
  The system also provides the functionality for users to ‘upload only’ or ‘upload and post’ depending on the authorisation granted. If a user has upload only, permissions within the system will validate the journal in this example, but it would them require intervention by an authoriser prior to being posted onto the GL. This is another example of functionality to achieve this requirement, without this being specific of an actual approver being specified in the upload.
  A screenshot of the Xcel Journal Uploader function is provided below:
- Consol.1 How do you apply multiple accounting standards to the individual entities within the group and how does this affect the consolidation process and treatment.
  The system provides the Trust with the ability to establish and operate its finance function within the identified standards. The majority of our existing NHS Trust clients operate the system on a similar basis. Based upon the information provided to-date, it is considered that the inbuilt GL hierarchy definition capabilities will be utilised to represent the different views for the grouping of accounts etc. within the system. For example, an account based hierarchy view can be created for the affected entity to represent an FRS102 view of the underlying financial data, whilst another hierarchy for the same entity can be created for the IFRS view. This functionality will assist the Trust in looking to achieve their requirements of applying the different accounting standards. A detailed workshop will be undertaken to ensure that the Trusts statutory financial requirements are addressed as part of the implementation.

- SA.1 In requisition approval, can all approvers within a chain be able to see and approve the requisition in set order before it goes to the next approver? How can we handle re-routing for vacation rules and time-outs?
  The system supports the ability to approve transactions within a chain via the flexible ‘Forward on’ function provided within eProcurement. The initial authoriser (the default for example) receives the workflow event and is able to review the requisition but unable (due to value limits set) approve the requisition. They then have the ability to forward on via an applicable drop down listing to select the approver within the given approval chain. The next level approver will be notified also via workflow and can review the requisition. If they have the approval capability, they can then click on approve and approve the requisition. If this approver also doesn’t have sufficient privileges then they too will forward it on to the next applicable approver. The audit trail identifies the full approval route and also allows each authoriser within the chain the ability to add notes as to the justification for the purchase being requested. There is no limit as to the number of levels of authorisation this could go through. The screenshot below shows the ‘Forward On’ function:
- With regard to the re-routing for vacation rules and time-outs, an ‘out of office’ function is provided for temporarily redirecting tasks during periods of planned absence (holiday, sickness etc.). An approval by proxy function ensures that designated users can authorise transactions that belong to other users e.g. approving transactions belonging to team members who are absent who were not able to activate the ‘out of office’ function.
  All authorisations of this nature are automatically recorded within the systems detailed audit trails. The screenshot below shows the Out-of-Office control screen:
- SA.2 Can we see a list of reports of: active users; users and their responsibilities (permission & access within a Role); who is using a responsibility; who has vacation rules on; who approved what etc.?
  The system provides a wide-range of system admin reports that will assist the Trust in maintaining and monitoring activity of its users.
- Active Users
  The screenshots below provide details of some of the functions and reports available.
  For example, the 1st screenshot below shows user activity on the system, including details such as user ID, module used, date/time of logon etc.
  The 2nd screenshot shows any open screens being used (including a terminate session command).
- Users and their responsibilities
  The screenshot below is an example online role based authorities enquiry screen, which shows users and their responsibilities (permission & access within a Role):
- Who is using a responsibility
  The Authorities Enquiry screen provides this information from an authorities perspective.
- Who has vacation rules on
  Users with administrator access to eProcurement can see approvers Out-of-Office status and update the status their behalf (as per the screenshot below).
- Who approved what
  A detailed audit trail of all transactions entered, approvals undertaken etc. is maintained at all times, which underpins the integrity of the system. Detailed audit reports are automatically generated and stored within the system. An example audit details ‘pop-up’ enquiry screen is provided below:
- Within the eProcurement workflow enquiry screens, users are able to view the associated approval audit details as per the screenshot below showing the requisition approval information:

- Proc.1 Upon Receiving supplier's goods in our Store - our distribution team needs to: 1)know the End Destination of the good for final internal Delivery 2)record Proof of Delivery from the End Destination department
  Note: We use PDA devices a)How does your system cater for this with set up and configs within the system areas like: Purchasing, internal shipping and location? b)What outputs are available eg: paper document, information generated in system fields, PDA file, that can be used for 1) as guide and 2) as proof for printing out /emailing etc... ?
- The system supports the ability to define an external delivery address (EDA) and an Internal Delivery Address (IDA), which acts as a secondary delivery/final destination location. The EDA is defaulted from the Cost Centre code, whilst the IDA is defaulted from the user ID.
  Both fields are included on the order output documentation. When an order is fulfilled and the goods are delivered, suppliers will likely be instructed (via text on the order) to deliver the items to the delivery location i.e. central stores. At this point, the IDA will be used by the stores department to complete final delivery to the required department/ward.
  Further to the above, secondary receipting by the end user department/receiving point can by entered into eProcurement by the end user to confirm receipt of the goods or service from central store.
- Multiple delivery based reports can be output by the system to support fulfilment of the delivery process, which can be output in multiple formats such as printed paper and on-screen enquiries.
  PDA devices can also be utilised to receive goods and register the receipt against the relevant order(s), thus providing PoD from the End Destination. The device simply needs to produce an XML file which contains Order Number, GTIN, Line Number, Product Code, Quantity Received plus any serial numbers, batch numbers, expiry dates etc.
  Once this file is received it can be imported automatically and update the relevant orders to show the receipts. This needs to be in line with your controls and processes/procedures.
  Our solution can utilise various PDA devices to support interfaces to NHS Supply Chain using both eDC and eDC Gold used by most customers, Genesis which is used amongst some of our customers such as Royal Free, Northampton, Hull and East Yorkshire and Salford Royal. Ingenica is also used with Kettering and East Lancs Healthcare. Both solutions support Scan for Safety.

- VAT.1 VAT returns - How much assistance is available for completion, does the solution handle COS VAT21 scenarios as part of the 9 box return?
  A comprehensive suite of VAT analysis and audit reports are provided to help the Trust analyse input/output VAT to assist with the completion of periodic VAT returns (includes partial VAT exemption analysis). The electronic VAT submission requirement is addressed using the Advanced HMRC accredited Business Tax Portal (BTP) solution, which has been developed to address the Making Tax Digital agenda. Using the BTP, the Trust is provided with the ability to submit online VAT returns to HMRC. Entries into the familiar 'nine box' return are automated by the system, which is further supported by the ability to reconcile and undertake adjustments prior to the final submission via a direct link to the HMRC Gateway. The system fully supports the identification and processing of COS VAT21 transactions through the standard VAT handling routines. The BTP further supports the handling of COS VAT21 transactions in respect of including the relevant values in the appropriate box in the ‘9 box’ return.
- Should be Empty:

Advanced 2nd Demo Questions and Answers