Based on the accounting team meeting on Dec 6, community decided a more sophisticated accounting bridge was needed. At deeper level, need flexibilities around chart of accounts and mapping of transactions because accounting needs to be rewritten completely in Mifos. We are long overdue for omething to "convert" Mifos entries into "generally accepted" accounting entries to facilitate integration faster. Community is deciding between integrating with Molly bridge or building one directly in Mifos.
Pros/Cons of each Approach:
Molly Integration Approach: continue supporting integration with Molly and at some point port over technology from Ruby to Java
Pro's: leverage active community members in finishing out the hard part - functional and business domain knowledge that bridge must support, solution is already part of the way there.
Con's: licensing issues, relying on external community, separate technology stack - too many separate solutions for an MFI, contrasting look and feel.
Build Directly in Mifos
Pro's: Same solution, same technology stack, no reliance on external community
Con's: too many technical limitations in Mifos - would require completing the re-architecture because Mifos doesn' support proper chart of accouns, classification of GL transactions - LOE much higher than Molly approach
No active Mifos community members working on this.
Work that must be done to integrate with Molly:
1) User definable accounting structure and COA
2) Mapping of Mifos COA with the Molly COA
3) Transaction mapping supporting multiple dr/cr and possibly with formula based rules
4) Same look as Mifos
5) Port over to same tech stack (Ruby to Java)
Additional feedback from Satriadi at BTPN in Indonesia (from Priority Gaps document): More robust Accounting module, especially for banks regarding governance regulation. But for MFI (non bank), this requirement should be in priority 2 as It’s not restricted by regulation.