Payment Prposal Approval

Our business needs two level of Approvals for Payment proposal to be converted in to payment run in F110. Is it possible.
Thanks in  advance.....

In Standard SAP this is not possible.
You have to implement work flow for this. Please take help from Workflow consultant.

Similar Messages

  • Cannot View Doc from Outgoing Payment under Approval Procedure messages

    Hi Experts,
    Both Originator and the approver cannot view the some of the pending and rejected documents when they are trying to edit the docuemtns from the approval procedures messages and approval decision reports.
    In effect, the approval cannot approvbed the documents as he cannot check the document for approval. The documents can be viewed from the payment draft dopcument. It will be tedious for the approval to go back and forth to draft document and approval decesion report.
    I already check the authorization for outgoing payment they both have full authorization. I can view the document as a super user. I need to know what other authorization do I need to check
    Both originator and  approver has full acess on outgoing payment since some of the documents can be viewed som3 documents cannot bew viewed.
    Please help. We are in the data catch up mode for October 2009.
    We are using 2007B PL10
    Edited by: Sandra Callanta on Oct 20, 2009 11:06 AM

    Login with userid who will approved the document
    Go in Admin > Approval Procedure > Approval Decision Report >
    Select first check box " No Decision Yet"
    select the pending one and approved it > update > ok

  • Payment proposal approval

    In the APP -F110 ,once the proposal is made is there standard option where a workflow can be triggered to get the approval of the superior before the payment run is made.
    Please suggest.

    Also try this
    F110 - Workflow
    Thank You,

  • I subscribed Adobe ExportPDF, I'm logged in, payment is approved, yet, not working !

    I don't understand what I going on:
    I am logged in, payment is no longer pending, yet I am being asked to subscribe, which I already did.
    Thank you.

    Try signing on to instead, might just work.

  • Outgoing Payment Error on approved payments

    Dear Experts,
    Can somebody please guide, there is an approval on outgoing payment, when user creates an outgoing payment against invoice(s), it goes for approval, and when user receives the outgoing payment back (approved) and try to add it in the system it gives an error "Withholding tax amount has changed on linked documents; create a new payment."
    Whereas if I add the same outgoing payment by selecting the same invoice(s) but without approval it does not give any error and add it in the system.
    Thanks & Regards,

    Please check the scenario in the Note No. : [1507246|] and see whether your issue is similar to the one reported.
    Kind Regards,
    SAP Business One Forum Team

  • Approval for Cash payment above Rs. 20000.

    How to incorporate the approval procedure for cash payment above rs 20000.
    thanks in advance

    Refer to SAP
    Note 1165619 - Cannot add outgoing payments in approval procedures.
    in the below link.
    This is an application bug.
    This problem is fixed in latest patch.
    Upgrade it to latest patch in 2007B.
    Hope it will solve the issue.

  • How to manage the payment approver users?

    Hello community,
    I would like to understand more on the payment approval process in SAP Business ByDesign. Despite it is quite easy to find the payment approval process in the help center, it is really hard to find how to manage to whom the payment approval request is sent. How can a system administrator can decide which users have the faculty to approve payments? How to change/update the list of approver users?
    Of course I have the rights to manage all users by assigning them business roles and access rights. I have access to all workcenters.
    Thank you in advance for your help.

    Hi Luca,
    You can define threshold amounts for payment approvals depending on company, payment method, and user. No task will be created if the amount of the outgoing payment is below the specified threshold.
    You can define this threshold for both incoming and outgoing payments on the Fine-Tune task Business Task Management for Payment and Liquidity Management
    After maintaining a threshold amount to trigger the approval process, you can define who is the approver via Application and User Management work center, Employee Work Distribution view. In the Finance and Administration group, define the approvers within Approver for Liquidity Management.
    The approval task is then sent to all approvers that you've maintained. If the task is completed for one of them, the payment gets approved. If there is no approver maintained, the task is sent to all authorized managers.
    Please, mark my reply as answered or helpful if this answers your question.
    Additionally, I'd also suggest you to post financial related questions on the Financial Management forum (, which would have a greater visibility from our financial experts team.
    Thanks a lot.
    Best Regards,

  • Approval procedure for Payments

    Dear All,
    Can we set approval procedure for outgoing payments in 2007A?

    Payment was only enabled in Approval Procedure for a few countries in 2007 B. 
    SAP Intends to introduce payment in approval procedure for 8.8,
    Check Note [1361189|]:
    Kind Regrads

  • Error in commitment fund date from a payment request

    When we try to post a payment request from a funds commitment position that has been added to the fund commitment in a date later than the posting date of the payment request, we receive an error message FI_E050.
    In our example the message FI_E050 is "Posting date/period 20.04.2009/004 is earlier than existing date/period 07.07.2009/007".
    The posting date of the payment request is 20.04.2009, the posting date of the funds commitment is 02.01.2009 and the creation date of the position of the funds commitment is 07.07.2009.
    We found the same issue for a modification of a commitment position and we solve it in SPRO as told by SAP OSS but now we have found the same error in an added position.
    Anyone has found this issue?
    Thank you very much in advance.
    Kind regards

    Hello Mar,
    I will try to explain it better. Sorry for the inconvenience.
    The FM update profile is 000359.
    PB: Annual-Based Encumbrance Trkg is marked.
    CB: Period-Based Encumbrance Tracking is marked.
    Then, we have the value type 65 with this values:
    Payment Budget     X
    Commitment Budget     X
    Year-Dependent Control Between Pa     
    Payment budget reduced     X
    Commitment budget reduced     X
    Payment Budget Date, Fiscal Year     B
    CB Date, Fiscal Year     B
    PB Date, Approval Year     F
    CB Date, Approval Year     F
    CCN logic payment budget     
    CCN logic, commitment budget     
    PB: Period-Based Encumbrance Trac     X
    CB: Period-Based Encumbrance Trac     X
    Budget assigned     X
    Revenue/expenditure control     
    PB: Annual-Based Encumbrance Trkg     
    CB: Annual-Based Encumbrance Trac     
    Approved Amounts in Payment Budge     
    Approved Amounts in Commitment Bu     X
    Rest of the values has not been updated with a profile value type dependency.
    After your answer, I have made a test between a funds reservation and a funds precommitment to ensure that the error was made because of the activation of PBET. Then I get that if I add a position to the funds reservation and I use this position in a funds precommitment, I get FI_E050 too. I use the same dates that you can find in the first post.
    On the other hand CB Period-Based Encumbrance Tracking is active for value type 80, 81, 82 and 83 (and 65). I suppose this is active because of the profile.
    Please, if you need more info I can send you and image of the RFFMMONI.
    Thank you very much in advance.
    Kind regards

  • F-47 park and post option OR F110 block option for payment requests

    HI experts,
    current business scenario:
    F-47 payment request by AP users
    F110 payment run (including payment requests) by manager
    so between F-47 & F110  system doesnt trigger for payment approvals
    Business requirement:
    After F-47 system should trigger workflow to concerned manager for approval
    At F110 (payment run) system should proceed after approvals if payment requests includes in the run
    Business doesnt  use F-48 ( post down payment) because check is processed by Bank
    Pls suggest workflow after F-47 or at F110 which wil intimate the concerned manager
    and stops &/ block the concerned payment till approval.
    Edited by: melgibson on Jan 16, 2012 8:30 AM

    Now i got your point. your requirement can be achived using a ABAP development.
    1) Create a Z table to store down payment requests (with all fields, those you use in F-47) and this table needs to be maintained via a Ztcode. (ZF-47). As soon as the user enter the DP request data in Ztcode, system should trigger the WORKFLOW and will send these requests to the manager's SAP Inbox. So once the manager approves few of them, those requests only will be processed by a Zprogram, which will create SAP standard DP requests using F-47 in background.
    Note: Please make sure that, your Ztable should have one special field called STATUS, which will be depending on manager's approval. If the manager rejects it, then status should be automatically updated to the Ztable.
    2) anyhow bank will automatically creates DP for all F-47 requests, which were pre approved above.
    This logic should work  and fits to your requirement.

  • Payment release workflow thru F-53 Transaction  help needed

    Hi gurus,
    I am trying for payment release workflow using F-53 which is the client requirement. As there is no parking option in the transaction i created a custom event "parked" in the transaction .I tried using BTE. but i m not able to find the right product no in infosystems of BTE for the transaction F-53. Is there any way for payment approval workflow.
    Thanks and Regards,

    Hi Kumar,
    Actually, what you may do is setup a workflow for automatic payment with approval/rejection process which would trigger a BAPI for f-53 process.
    And keep the below items in mind before finalize:
    a. F110 will not clear any blocked invoices.
    This is the default setting, as a security for the blocked items stay in the system
    (blocks are always there with a reason).
    b. In F-53 you can control what you want to clear (not automatic),
    therefore some blocks can be redefined allowing F-53 to clear SPECIAL-BLOCKED items
    You may find more options too.

  • Approval procedure issue

    I need a query for outgoing payment approval, if cash is more than 1000 then approval should get activated.
    Below query is not working. Any chages?
    Select 'true' where $[$ovpn.CashSum] > 1000

    hi shashi,
    Read this Note 1165619 - Cannot add outgoing payments in approval procedures
    Edited by: Jeyakanthan A on Sep 12, 2009 10:13 AM

  • Design a work flow for AP Payment.

    Hi all,
    i am new for oracle workflow.
    after Payable invoice approval we use to make a payment of that invoice but in this case i would make a payment but
    i have to take approval from two autorities may be they are having same level.
    if first approver approve the cheque then the notification to second will be send, if second approver reject the payment then the cheque go to cheque counter
    the person ill check the amount updated by second apporver and again the cheque ill be send to approve to the approver. once the payment is approved the
    accounting button on oracle payment page should get enabled. finally payment get completed.
    can any one help me in design workflow for the same..

    You can do the following
    1. Create a new ZBUS2015 and delegate it to BUS2015
    2. Create your events on this new ZBUS2015
    3. There is one User Exit for VL31, i.e V53W0001, in this exit raise your necessary event based on conditions. You can use SAP_WAPI_CREATE_EVENT to raise events.
    Hope this helps you !!
    Krishna Mohan

  • BCM - Approval status manual

    We use BCM approval for two channel
    1- by SWIFT channel
    2- Out of SWIFT channel
    How is it possible to change the payments from "Approved" to "Sent to Bank" or completed ? manual in channel 2

    Hello Alaa,
    2. Out of Swift Channel - I hope this is via PI flow. Here you have to do some mapping in PI side and configuration in Sap ( Map external status to internal status in BCM ) to get the correct messages / acknowledgement after sending the file from SAP to PI side and from PI side to Third party who is sending the encrypted file to bank.
    Once the encrypted payment file is placed in AL11 folder after the BCM approvals and the same will be displayed as Payment medium created of that batch.
    Once the third party is receiving the file from PI side thn the message is as Received by payment network to that batch.
    It will change as Received by bank once the bank receives the file.
    If the payment documents data is correct then the message is shown as Accepted by bank once bank accepts that file
    You can find the status of that batch in BNK_MONI by selecting the batch andthen check the history of that batch.
    I hope it helps!
    Thanks & Regards,
    Lakshmi S

  • Alternate for 'IN' operator

    version: 11g
    One of my query which uses 'IN' operator in WHERE clause to filter. I used around 30 values inside the IN operator to filter. I'm facing performance issue with this, Is there any alternate to IN operator which improves the performance of the query? For some reason, I don't want to go for UNION set operator. Pls advise.

    SELECT Approvable, Approvable."Type", Approvable.UniqueName, Approvable.Name, Approvable.CreateDate, Approvable.StatusString FROM Approvable WHERE Approvable."Active" = TRUE
    AND Approvable.Preparer = baseid('AAAKAECCxTV') AND
    Approvable."Type" <> 'txt.common.core.SupplierProfileRequest' AND Approvable."Type" <> 'txt.receiving.core.Receipt' AND Approvable."Type" <> 'txt.receiving.core.MilestoneTracker'
    AND Approvable."Type" <> 'txt.contract.core.Contract'
    AND Approvable."Type" <> 'txt.invoicing.core.InvoiceReconciliation' AND Approvable."Type" <> 'txt.payment.core.Payment' AND Approvable."Type" <> 'txt.payment.core.PaymentTransaction'
    AND Approvable."Type" <> 'txt.purchasing.core.PurchaseOrder'
    AND Approvable."Type" <> 'txt.purchasing.core.CopyOrder' AND Approvable."Type" <> 'txt.purchasing.core.DirectOrder' AND Approvable."Type" <> 'txt.purchasing.core.ERPOrder'
    AND Approvable."Type" <> 'txt.pcard.core.PCardOrder' AND Approvable."Type" <> 'txt.charge.core.ChargeReconciliation' AND Approvable."Type" <> 'txt.charge.core.Charge'
    AND Approvable."Type" <> 'txt.collaboration.core.Proposal' AND Approvable."Type" <> 'txt.collaboration.core.CounterProposal' AND Approvable."Type" <> 'txt.collaboration.core.CollaborationRequest'
    AND Approvable."Type" <> 'txt.expense.core.TravelAuthorizationOrder' AND Approvable."Type" <> 'txt.budget.core.Budget' ORDER BY Approvable.TimeCreated DESC*Is the above more readable than below?
    SELECT approvable,
    FROM approvable
    WHERE approvable."Active" = true
    AND approvable.preparer   = baseid('AAAKAECCxTV')
    AND Approvable."Type"    != 'txt.common.core.SupplierProfileRequest'
    AND Approvable."Type"    != 'txt.receiving.core.Receipt'
    AND Approvable."Type"    != 'txt.receiving.core.MilestoneTracker'
    AND Approvable."Type"    != 'txt.contract.core.Contract'
    AND Approvable."Type"    != 'txt.invoicing.core.InvoiceReconciliation'
    AND Approvable."Type"    != 'txt.payment.core.Payment'
    AND Approvable."Type"    != 'txt.payment.core.PaymentTransaction'
    AND Approvable."Type"    != 'txt.purchasing.core.PurchaseOrder'
    AND Approvable."Type"    != 'txt.purchasing.core.CopyOrder'
    AND Approvable."Type"    != 'txt.purchasing.core.DirectOrder'
    AND Approvable."Type"    != 'txt.purchasing.core.ERPOrder'
    AND Approvable."Type"    != 'txt.pcard.core.PCardOrder'
    AND Approvable."Type"    != 'txt.charge.core.ChargeReconciliation'
    AND Approvable."Type"    != 'txt.charge.core.Charge'
    AND Approvable."Type"    != 'txt.collaboration.core.Proposal'
    AND Approvable."Type"    != 'txt.collaboration.core.CounterProposal'
    AND Approvable."Type"    != 'txt.collaboration.core.CollaborationRequest'
    AND Approvable."Type"    != 'txt.expense.core.TravelAuthorizationOrder'
    AND Approvable."Type"    != 'txt.budget.core.Budget'
    ORDER BY Approvable.TimeCreated DESCIf only, you could maintain a Master/Reference table, that stores the "Approvable.TYPE" values that are valid, the entire query can be reduced to below:
    SELECT approvable,
    FROM approvable
    WHERE approvable."Active" = true
    and approvable.preparer   = baseid('AAAKAECCxTV')
    and not exists (
                    select 'x'
                      from reference_type_table r
                     where r.type = approvable.type
    ORDER BY Approvable.TimeCreated DESCAnd nowhere have you used an IN operator, which contradicts with your subject line. So, unless you want to confuse others, the subject line must depict the picture of your problem.
    As you may have noticed, the Forum software replaced Not Equals sign with a Blank, you must use != as the Not Equality operator.
    Moreover, what you write in IN List, oracle converts it to OR-ed conditions. See below:
    explain plan for
    select * from dual where trunc(sysdate) in (to_date('07-Jan-2012', 'DD-Mon-YYYY'), to_date('08-Jan-2012', 'DD-Mon-YYYY'));
    Plan hash value: 1224005312
    | Id  | Operation          | Name | Rows  | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
    |   0 | SELECT STATEMENT   |      |     1 |     2 |     2   (0)| 00:00:01 |
    |*  1 |  FILTER            |      |       |       |            |          |
    |   2 |   TABLE ACCESS FULL| DUAL |     1 |     2 |     2   (0)| 00:00:01 |
    Query Block Name / Object Alias (identified by operation id):
       1 - SEL$1
       2 - SEL$1 / [email protected]$1
    Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
       1 - filter(TRUNC([email protected]!)=TO_DATE(' 2012-01-07 00:00:00',
                  'syyyy-mm-dd hh24:mi:ss') OR TRUNC([email protected]!)=TO_DATE(' 2012-01-08
                  00:00:00', 'syyyy-mm-dd hh24:mi:ss'))
    Column Projection Information (identified by operation id):
       1 - "DUAL"."DUMMY"[VARCHAR2,1]
       2 - "DUAL"."DUMMY"[VARCHAR2,1]Hence, I do not believe that changing to or from IN operator will benefit the performance, unless you are writing the query that makes better use of Indexes. If you have performance issues with your query, then I would suggest you to read {message:id=3292438} and provide proper information.
    Edited by: Purvesh K on Jan 7, 2013 6:07 PM
    Added Explain Plan

Maybe you are looking for