After improving the statment party rule matching we are still feeling that the statment workflow can be improved from the user experience point of view.
We have the problem that the Norm43 import from the Spanish banks does not have any structured text to match the invoices. Some people include them on the description but it depends on the party and also if the bank includes such information, so most of the time we just have the party name and the amount paid. But I guess, we are not the only country having such issues, so any improvement on this side will also help other formats without so much information.
The current situation is that after appling the rules, the user gets a list of parties without amounts but unrelated to invoices. Then they need to manually fill the invoice in order to avoid the reconciliation process or just reconcile all the lines latte. This is a lot of work if the number of invoices is big so I’m wondering if we should find a way to automate them.
We’ve seen two cases that it’s possible to know which invoice the payment is realted but the invoice field is left empty:
- When there is a single invoice for the party to be paid.
- When there are several pending lines to pay of diferents amounts, but the line amount matches the amount of one of them. In this case, if the lines is related to an invoice, we can fill the invoice to indicate that is a partiall payment.
In both cases, we can just make a search on the party lines to pay, to see if any matches by the amount and pick it’s invoice if found. Do you think this will be something that can be included on base module? If so, doest it make sense to have a flag on the rule to activate the feature (to avoid unexpected searches) or we should do it on all lines?
account_payment workflow is also which we should consider (specially when not using the clearing feature). Let me add a real example from one of our customers:
- They are generating nearly 300 invoices each month (grouping all sales of the month into a single invoice)
- Most of the invoices are paid with SEPA transfer, but they have diferent due dates, so for each month they have 5 or 6 payment groups with diferent amounts.
- When receiving the money in the statment, they get a single origin for the amount of each payment group.
Currently, each user should create a line for each customer/invoice included on the group. Following our example, this means creating between 50 or 60 lines to split the origin for each customer. Main issue here is that we already know which customers (and which amounts) are included on the origin because they are related to a single group. So the idea is to ask the user for a payment group and include a line for each payment that is included on it (or even with just the payments that are still processing). Do you think this should be a nice feature?
We are not using the account_statement_clearing because it requires to not have a party on it’s moves, but this is not the case of the related accounts of the Spanish chart. There is a related issue, but I’m still not sure if removing the flag for the accounts is the right solution.
Any comments will be much appreciated.