Originally posted 7 January 2009 on oraclecs.com
Recently I had a discussion regarding custom Subledger Accounting Methods and their reusability. As you know, out of the box we provide 4 seeded accounting methods (Standard Cash, Standard Accrual, Encumbrance Cash, Encumbrance Accrual) and these can be reused at will as such a seeded SLAM can be attached to any ledger, regardless how that ledger’s chart of accounts looks like.
So why is it that when you build a custom SLAM the above isn’t always the case?
The answer is simple: the seeded SLAMs are accounting flexfield independent: if you look at the seeded SLAMs you’ll notice they don’t have a chart of accounts assigned to them.
This will allow you to use the SLAM against any ledger you like.
Such an accounting flexfield independent SLAM is made up of individual underlying components which in their turn or also all accounting flexfield independent, like for instance this Application Accounting Definition:
So why not always use an accounting flexfield independent SLAM then?
The reason why you would choose to build an accounting flexfield dependent SLAM is because if you nominate a chart of accounts SLA will allow you to derive each individual segment of your chart of accounts.
While in case of an accounting flexfield independent SLAM, you can only nominate the accounting flexfield segment qualifiers.
But of course in the case of the second example this does not mean that the remaining segments are left alone. Even when SLA is not aware of the chart of accounts, it can still look in the subledgers and take the full accounting flexfield directly from the subledgers.
So when you’re building a SLAM (either based on a seeded SLAM or you’re building a SLAM entirely from scratch e.g. when implementing FSAH) then first take a minute to think about how you would like your SLAM to behave: dependent or independent of a chart of accounts.