Oracle Financial Consolidation and Close Cloud Service (FCCS) is one of the latest cloud solutions offered by Oracle. Doga Pamir, Solutions Architect at Perficient, was selected by ODTUG to present at Kscope17 on this topic. His session, HFM to FCCS – A Customer Success Story, landed Doga not one, but two awards! The session was so well received that he recently presented the same topic for ODTUG as part of their educational webinar series. In this two-part blog post, I’ll share the questions asked by webinar attendees. If you would like to watch the on-demand event, it’s available for download for ODTUG members.
Why not use Data Management for mapping of the historical data?
We did try to go the Data Management route to load historical data. We noticed there were many mapping changes over the past five years. We did a few sample loads to see how the data would look with the existing mappings that we had in Data Management, and noticed there were a lot of reclasses of differences in mappings, and we were going to spend more time than we would like to fix these mapping issues. That’s when we decided to use Smart View templates instead of Data Management mappings.
Explore key considerations, integrating the cloud with legacy applications and challenges of current cloud implementations.
In the customer example you highlighted, there were three custom dimensions in HFM, but only two in FCCS. Why is that?
As of today, FCCS has two custom dimensions if the multi-GAAP dimension is not enabled. In HFM right now, we have unlimited custom dimensions, and our customer had three. I listed three on purpose, but one of the custom dimensions they were using for the data type became a system dimension in FCCS. We were left with cost center and division. They fit that box when we were doing our implementation. Again, I don’t want to comment on the roadmap, but I think Oracle’s goal is to add more dimensions, and I believe FCCS will have up to six along with the multi-GAAP dimension is not enabled. If it is enabled, it’s going to go down to five, but as of today, it is just two custom dimensions in FCCS when the multi-GAAP dimension is not enabled.
In the model, did any entity have non-controlling interest?
No, all the entities were owned 100% in this particular case.
We are implementing DRM. Does that work for FCCS?
There are several different ways to manage metadata in FCCS. DRM is going to be released on the cloud as a separate product. I believe it’s called DRCS, and essentially will replicate the metadata management features of DRM and probably over time build integrations directly into the cloud applications such as EPBCS and FCCS and so on. Today, there is no DRM on the cloud yet. The integrations haven’t been built to FCCS. Your only option when implementing FCCS now is to use either Smart View to manage your metadata, the actual web browser itself, or imported file.
Did you use a conversion utility to convert HFM metadata to FCCS? If so, how long did this take?
In our case, everything was basically one-to-one like accounts. We were bringing as one-to-one all the entities, the call centers, divisions. We took the extracts out of HFM and we put them—we first used web files, but then we also utilized Smart View metadata management feature. Building the members and the hierarchies didn’t take too much time at all. However, setting up the properties for each, because we were also fairly new. The back engine is Essbase, so the properties will look different. Setting those up took a little bit more time, but not more than couple days, to be honest. But building the hierarchies, that was not an issue because everything was basically one-to-one from HFM to FCCS
Did you try the reporting currency triangulation? Did it work?
We did not need the triangulation, so I did not personally test it. We had one reporting currency, which was USD, so everything was directly going into USD, and that worked. They did not have a need for GBP entity reporting, or Canadian dollars.