We have a requirement to approve a record if anyone (not everyone) from the list approves it. For example, the approval requirement for contracts contains two users, A and B. If user A approves a contract, then it gets approved without user B. And vice versa, if user B approves it first, then user A is skipped. Can we do this?
Recently, I had an opportunity to test this, specifically, two users at level 1 and two users at level 2, etc. After speaking with the development team, each user at each level must approve the record. This is working as designed. There is no plan to change that behavior at this time. I believe that there is an open RFE to request the functionality in a future release. I suggest either opening an RFE or voting for the existing RFE if you need that functionality.
[Admin: This post is related to the 10.21.15 post about group approvals. To see other related posts, use the Approvals tag.]
I am running into this same issue (“Remit To” and “Paid By” details on the payment instruction, from 07.22.14; RFE ID 56092). We are using TRIRIGA 10.4.2.1/188.8.131.52.
Has there been any update on whether this fix has been applied to a future release? We are also running into an issue where if we create a “One Time Payment” off the “Payment Processing” (Find) link, there is no way to associate the “One Time Payment” to a payment instruction. Has anyone developed a workaround for that as well?
[Admin: To see other related posts, use the Payments tag or RFE tag.]
I have a summary report that has two BOs, grouped first by project, and then by cost code, and summed by amount.
When the report runs, it shows the totals as expected. When I click one of the lines in the report, I expect to see a tabular report showing, for that project, cost code, and amount, the values that contribute to the total only. Instead, all the projects and all the cost codes are displayed, as well as what I want to see. Is there a way in a summary report to click on a line and see only the lines that make up the total?
Unfortunately, it is not possible to configure the report to do what you are expecting here. You may want to develop a BIRT report to accomplish this. You could look at hierarchical reports as an option as well, but you might lose some of the summary options. You might want to submit a request for enhancement (RFE) on this.
[Admin: To see other related posts, use the Summary tag or Drilldown tag.]
I’ve noticed that if the record is read-only in its current state, we can still edit this record via the editable query. Is it possible to set editable fields, or the whole record, to read-only conditionally? For example, according to status?
Unfortunately, the platform does not handle this requirement. I would recommend adding a request for enhancement (RFE) for consideration in a future release.
[Admin: To see other related posts, use the Editable tag.]
Is there a way to default a system filter or user filter with a specific value? So, if the user clicks on the button, that value runs the query? Then, the user has the option to remove the default value in the filter, which would display all the records. My other option is to create Related Reports with each specific default system filter.
No. We could potentially pre-populate the default filter values on the initial report, but I am not sure it would be best for usability to ask the user to delete these values in order to query for “all” records. Unless most of the time, the user would want to run with the default filters. Actually, it might be an interesting RFE. Maybe as an alternative to the prompt before query? Feel free to request the RFE here.
[Admin: To see other related posts, use the Filter tag or RFE tag.]
Some of our Admin users need access to the Admin Console to monitor different parameters from there. On the other hand, they must not login to TRIRIGA (or access direct URLs) with business data with Admin access. Is there a way to do this?
Currently, a user must be part of the Admin Group to access the Admin Console page. Please create a request for enhancement (RFE) with business justification and it will be reviewed by the TRIRIGA team.
In the TRIRIGA 10.4.1 Lease > Accounting tab > Schedule Summary section, there is the “Total Rent Present Value” field. In 10.5.2, that field is no longer there, but there is the “Current NPV of Rent” field. What is the difference between the two? Why are they different?
I can’t reply to the specific changes, but since 10.4.1 was released in 2014 and 10.5.2 was released in late 2016, there were scenario enhancements and more scenarios covered in TRIRIGA for Lease Accounting in the releases in between. The Lease Accounting wiki has information about the changes in these releases and might be helpful for questions similar to this (i.e., what is the difference between releases)…
Looks like the difference between present value (PV) and net present value (NPV) is the “net”. The latter “net” basically accounts for the initial capital/investment. As for “why” the change, I’m not sure, but it might be a more useful or accurate value for newer lease calculations/standards…
Both represent the Net Present Value (NPV) for the Operating/Finance schedule. The field from 10.4.1 and 10.5.2 is the same, but the label has changed in 10.5.2. In 10.4.1, it represented the Net Present Value at the time of lease activation and was not updated even if there were review assumptions performed. In 10.5.2, after the new accounting standard finalized, the current NPV now represents the NPV (liability as it is known) either at the time of first activation of the lease, OR after any recalculations might have impacted it due to performing the review assumptions. For example, at the start, it might be $30,000 and 1 year later, the NPV changed to $21,000, due to review assumptions that represent the “current” values at that point. By comparison, in 10.4.1, it would always show as $30,000.
[Admin: This post is related to the 02.22.16 post about the latest information on lease accounting.]
We need to add a disclaimer to the Admin Console login page in TRIRIGA 3.5.1. Has anyone done this before?
The Administration Console does not have the ability to insert a disclaimer into it. I would recommend you submit a request for enhancement (RFE) for that.
Is there a way to re-export an IBM Watson Analytics dataset and have it refresh rather than create new data? I haven’t refined the data in Watson, just testing after doing a TRIRIGA 3.5.2 upgrade. I exported a dataset from TRIRIGA, waited a day, exported again, and it shows as a second item in Watson.
This is an issue, because there are now discovery sets apparently pointing to the first data import, so the new data isn’t showing up. I don’t see a way to re-point the discovery set, and would prefer to not recreate after going into the new data. Am I overlooking something?
Unfortunately, there is no way for the TRIRIGA Connector for Watson Analytics to refresh or append to an existing dataset, because that capability was not available in the Watson Analytics API when we were developing the TRIRIGA Connector. It’s a good RFE candidate once supported by Watson Analytics and I encourage you to submit a request for enhancement (RFE) under “IBM TRIRIGA Platform”. Also, a good source of information is the Watson Analytics forum.
[Admin: This post is related to the 12.15.16 post about finding information about the IBM TRIRIGA Connector for Watson Analytics, the 11.15.16 post about the overview and demo, and the 07.09.16 post about combining IBM Watson Analytics and IoT with TRIRIGA. To see other related posts, search “Watson Analytics“.]