Compliance Calibrator for SRM and SCM???

Hello,
Can we use the compliance calibrator for the modules like SRM and SCM? Do we get any ruleset for these modules from SAP or need to create ourself?
Thanks in advance
Eric

Alexander,
Thanks for your prompt response. But the note available from SAP is not included SCM?
<b>Note 1033326 - Compliance Calibrator 5.2 Rule Upload</b>
SOD Action and Permission level rules are provided for R/3, APO, ECCS, CRM
and SRM. HR and Basis rules are included in the R/3 but also broken out
separately.
Could you tell me what all other modules are included in the standard ruleset?
Thanks in advance
Eric

Similar Messages

  • Create rules in Compliance Calibrator for HR PD profiles

    Hello
    In Compliance Calibrator can we create a rule to check PD profile combinations?
    Example:
    We have 3 PD profiles say 1, 2, 3
    We dont want 1, 3 together
    Any help on this, is greatly appreciated.

    Alexander,
    Thanks for your prompt response. But the note available from SAP is not included SCM?
    <b>Note 1033326 - Compliance Calibrator 5.2 Rule Upload</b>
    SOD Action and Permission level rules are provided for R/3, APO, ECCS, CRM
    and SRM. HR and Basis rules are included in the R/3 but also broken out
    separately.
    Could you tell me what all other modules are included in the standard ruleset?
    Thanks in advance
    Eric

  • Best Practices in use of ABAP for SRM and/or CRM Configuration

    I was wondering if there is a document that defines best practices for the use of ABAP with the installation and customization of SRM and/or CRM. Such as amount of ABAP coding typically required, and best practices around the use of ABAP for customization and configuration.
    Thanks.

    Hi, Johnson
    Sorry, Please don't mind, you are not at right place to ask the Question like this
    Please read "The Forum Rules of Engagement" before posting!  HOT NEWS!!
    Thanks and Regards,
    Faisal

  • XI content for SRM and CCM scenario - mapping

    Hi All,
    We are using the standard business content for integrating SRM with CCM to update contract information from SRM to CCM. Both SRM and CCM are on the same system.
    The configuration scenario used is MasterDataInclusionInCatalogOnWAS700 which is in the name space SAP CATALOG CONT.MGMT. 2.0_700 , http://sap.com/xi/CCM/CAT.
    There are 2 interfaces being referred by this scenario: CatalogUpdateNotification_Out and this CatalogUpdateNotification_In and both the interfaces are pointing to the same meesage type CatalogTransmission but they are in different name spaces.
    Once the scenario was configured there was no interface mapping available in the standard business content to map the above 2 interfaces.
    SAP SRM SERVER 5.5
    CatalogUpdateNotification_Out
    CatalogTransmission
    http://sap.com/xi/EBP
    SAP CATALOG CONT.MGMT. 2.0_700 ,
    CatalogUpdateNotification_In
    CatalogTransmission
    http://sap.com/xi/CCM/CAT
    Is this the normal case and we need to develop our own mapping or is the standard content not imported correctly?
    The service pack details are as follows:
    PI 7.0 SP level 14
    XI content
    u2022 SAP BASIS 7.00 - SP 14
    u2022 SAP CATALOG CONT.MGMT. 2.0_700 - SP 12
    u2022 SAP SRM SERVER 5.5 - SP 11
    u2022 SAP ABA 7.00 - SP 14
    Thanks,
    Shravan

    ditto, anybody received a response from SAP with regards to this problem?
    As suggested above, we could build our own mapping in XI but this would obviously be a modification to SAP standard which we would prefer to avoid.
    Regards, Kyle.
    OK Received a response from SAP dated Oct. 9, 2008
    I assume that you have installed NW 7.00 SP14 (or higher).
    Within earlier versions the mapping from XML to ABAP was to lax.
    The XML message was processed witout regarding the name of the root
    element. This was fixed with SP14.
    When you call an interface the XML message must match with the type
    defined in the WSDL used for proxy generation.
    Either the message or the WSDL used to generate the proxy seems to be
    wrong here.
    Here is a work around should solve this problem until we make available in a standard note soon.
    I will do it internally to our development team but I am sorry that i can not tell now when the note will be ready.
    Disable the new check by adding the following entry in transaction sproxset
    -Name: ST_USE_LAX_ON
    -Value: X
    -User: <empty>
    -Inactive: <empty>
    Edited by: Kyle Freeman on Oct 9, 2008 5:54 PM

  • Velocity Displcement Calibration for Sound and Vibration Tool Kit

    Hello Guys,
    I have been working on sound and vibration tool kit recently.
    I'm taking input from sound port of PC by signal generator and taking single and double Integration for velocity and displacement resp.
    I want to check the correctness of the values for different amplitudes,and different frequencies of signal, velocity and displacement. 
    The RMS values for signal is calibrated as per signal generator, RMS value for the Velocity is correct for a limited frequency range 
    and the RMS value for the displacement is not at all calibrated for any of the frequency. 
    I will appreciate replies,

    Hey guys,
    The following vi is working
    for the signal generated with in Labview but if the signal is taken
    from mic port through signal generator.
    then the velocity and displacement is not coming.
    i'm attaching vi below kindly  reply if someone get something
    Attachments:
    avd signal generator labview.vi ‏26 KB
    avd mic port.vi ‏36 KB

  • GRC Compliance Calibrator 5.3 and the "action" field for S_TCODE.

    Dear GRC gurus,
    I have read the threads here on the search terms for the "action" field in the "function" definitions, but not found a clear answer... so forgive me for asking a possibly obvious question.
    When implementing the technical rules for the function, it seems that the "action" field is included in the check even if it's value is not in the "permissions" of object S_TCODE. But there is no "look up" nor validation (how could there be from the Java system?) on what that value is.
    Appart from the fact that one might be tempted to enter some nonesense text in there, what is the logic behind the checks in the coding if it happens to fit a tcode name and is this field truncated at any points?
    The reason for asking, is that we have some critical functions in the system for which we do not care how the user gets to it (tcode's... , rfc's..., service's... etc) but want to analyze whether the users can infact use the function (as opposed to attempt to start it). This makes sense in many business functions, and for the "basis" stuff which is critical it should be clear).
    What we wanted to do was "name" the action by it's well known transaction code (in a symbolic sort of way, for the business users... to be able to recognize it, symbolically... although S_TCODE does not have an activity field........) but not have it checked in the rule set at the technical level. The standard delivered rules seemed to do the same thing... but we are still stuck on the s_tcode check because we dont want it in some cases and have good reasons for this.
    - Can anyone confirm how this really works? For example wild carding FB* as the action name?
    - Assuming our above analysis is correct, which tricks can you recommend (add a "dummy" action?; add a * action?; a possible naming convention?) to shed the harness of the tcode check (or having to document all of the buggers in the actions...) but still make it useable for the only slightly technically inclined folks who do understand that there are enough tcodes or it is critical enough that we should not rely on the "very general" protection provided by tcodes?
    Bad news, future insights and work-arounds are all welcome
    Cheers,
    Julius
    Edited by: Julius Bussche on Dec 10, 2008 11:30 PM

    Thank you Sam and also Kaushal for searching
    This describes exactly what we were looking for and the manual load / merge was also the intention using the file as the "master" to maintain and not make changes within the application.
    Thanks again. I will try it out.
    Cheers,
    Julius

  • Compliance Calibrator for multiple SAP systems

    I was wondering if anyone could assist me with my query.  We are currently performing an implementation of Virsa CC for a client and have begun to configure a CC DEV system they have installed with their custom SoD rule set.  The DEV CC system (sitting on a stand alone NetWeaver box) is "connected" to four SAP systems (DEV, QA, HR DEV & HR QA).  When we are building "functions" (i.e. raise purchase orders) in CC it asks us to define a SAP system when we are entering the transaction codes.  We've been configuring the functions with SAP DEV as the system, however when we run the analysis of results we would like to get results from QA as well.  It appears that the risk analysis only works for the system that you have defined the functions in (i.e. we get results for users in DEV but not for users in QA).
    My questions are as follows:
    - Do you need to define all the systems you wish to run a risk analysis for within the function (i.e. function = Raise purchase orders. DEV ME21 & QA ME21)?
    - If so, is there an easy way to convert our functions so that they point to QA as well (we've noticed that we can't edit the SAP system once the function is saved)?
    - Is it possible to export the functions and then define the SAP system when importing them back into CC (we've noticed with the SAP delivered rule set that SAP DEV was automatically defaulted)?  This is particularly relevant as we would like to export the rules from the DEV CC system and import them to the PROD CC system without having to manually create the rule set again; and
    - Is it possible to export the rules and manually change the SAP system reference and import them back into CC (i.e. do a "replace all" DEV to QA)?
    Any help would be greatly appreciated.
    Thanks,
    Alexi

    In order to perform what your are trying to do in CC 5.2, you will need to go to configuration and setup a logical system, such as SAP R/3 and define all the appropriate systems for the logical system.  Then, when modifying the functions, you will need to set the tcode (action) to the logical system defined, such as R/3 or APO, etc. 
    The cross-system functionality only comes into play if you want to analyze the SOD where a conflict would occur if a user had access to one function in one system (for example - purchase order processing in APO) and a conflicting function in a different system (for example - Vendor Master in R/3). 
    If you simply want to check who has violates a risk against multiple system - the logical system is the best way.  You can have an logical system by system type - R/3, BW, APO, SRM, etc.
    To convert this over, you can export the rules and during the export you have to define the new system when exporting the file.  If that doesn't work, I'd just delete everything out, and use the upload files to reload the rules with the correct data.

  • Same business partner number for SRM and backend system

    Hello all, I am working in SRM 7.0 in a classic scenario.
    I am trying to replicate vendors from backend system to SRM, but I want that all vendors have same number in two systems, for example:
    Vendor 1000 in backend shows as 1000 in SRM
    How can I do it?
    Thanks in advance
    Rosa Rodríguez

    Hello,
    A. You need to customizing settings in SRM system
    1. Define Number ranges as External  (Same number ranges which are maintained in R3 backend sytem)
    (Tcode:BUCF / Path: IMG --> Cross-Application Components --> SAP Business Partner > Basic Settings> Number Ranges and Groupings --> Define Number Ranges)
    2.  Define Groupings and Assign Number Ranges (Path: IMG --> Cross-Application Components --> SAP Business Partner > Basic Settings> Number Ranges and Groupings --> Define Groupings and Assign Number Ranges )
    B. Before replication you need extract payment terms and UOM in SRM system & Create the Vendor root org structure (Tcode: PPOCV_BBP)
    @Experts: Please add if i miss any thing apart from this.
    Regards,
    Suneel Kumar Singan

  • Material needed for AFS and SCM integration

    Hello Experts,
            Please provide with links and help documents which having good informations about doing demand planning for AFS data in SCM.  Any help is highly appreciated.
    Thanks and Regards,
    Babu

    Hello Babu,
    Try the link below:
    http://help.sap.com/saphelp_scm50/helpdata/en/43/38619c22a71bd0e10000000a1553f7/frameset.htm
    Regards,
    Michel Bohn

  • How to find the latest SAP patch release for SRM and BI 7.0?

    Hi experts,
    I know how to check my sytem patch level in BI 7.0 and SRM. My question is how and where to check the latest patch level on SAP service market place.
    Thanks in advance.
    Sharat.

    Hello,
    Goto service.sap.com -> software download -> sap support packages -> Entry by application group -> Sap Frontend components -> SAP GUI for windows
    In SAP Frontend components you have patches for BI add-on too.
    Assign points if this helps
    Regards,
    Jorge Diogo

  • Compliance Calibrator Design - Roles and Profiles

    Hi guys,as you know SAP's authorization concept involves generation of Roles into Profile before it can be assigned to a User. In CC, i wonder why is there a need to segregate Roles and Profiles into 2 seperate functions. Isnt it already sufficient to analyse roles instead of profiles? Profile are names which is too technical which i feel should be omitted unless really necessary.
    Well, unless it is to cater for indirect assignment where profiles are granted to position/org unit etc... I will also be trying out whether there is a difference when you only batch analyse a Role and intentionally excluding the 'profile' whenever a new role is created. Will the system work fine when i do a role analysis?
    Cheers!

    I agree that profiles are old fashioned and should be phased out.  The system has to stop people from being able to maintain profiles directly and assign them directly before they do this though.  SAP_ALL etc can be converted and assigned as a role.  It would make the whole authorisation concept just that little bit easier.  We are talking about a German company though!
    Also, you don't need profiles for indirect assignment.  You can relate roles to the position using PFCG!  Click on the organisational management button on the user-tab, next to the user comparison button.
    Using profiles (ie, maintaining directly and assignment) is highly recommended against.

  • Compliance Calibrator 5.2 and position based user role provisioning

    Hi
    We are having Position based security in place... I was just wondering if CC 5.2 can do SOD analysis in Position based secuirty also?

    Hi parveen,
    To do HR Risk analysis perform following steps:-
    To excute this scenario try to take help of HR Consultant.
    1-Go to SAP System>Execute PPSC transaction>create Position.
    2-Now execute PO13 transaction-->select that position assigned role ( Contains some risk violation) to that position.
    3- Now in CC ,go to informer tab> Risk analysis> HR Objects-->excute report with following key  parametrs
        i)System:-any sap system
        ii)Analysis Type :-Object security only
        iii) Object Type:Position
        iv)Rule Set: *
    Now you can perform risk analysis at position level.
    Regards,
    Jagat

  • Advantages and disadvantages for SRM on one client with ECC

    Dear SAP gurus,
    We are evaluating the use of SRM on one client with ECC. Is there a paper spesifally discuss the advantage and disadvantages of having this deployment option?
    Best regards,
    John

    Hi
    check this  link
    SRM Server as an Add on to ERP 2005
    Advantages
    1) one backend for SRM and ECC6.0
    Disadvantage
    1.Sourcing scenario cannot be implemented.
    2.It does not support multiple backend system.
    Regards
    G.Ganesh Kumar

  • Compliance Calibrator 4.0 - importing Long Risk Detailed Description text

    We just installed Compliance Calibrator, in Production, and we need to import the Long Detailed Description text, for each risk, from client 000 to our production client (600).
    Our Basis staff do not want to unlock the system for client copy imports.  Is there another way of importing the Long Detail Description text for each risk, into Production, without unlocking the system for client copying?

    Hi, when you transport with Utilities -> Rule Transport , the Long Risk DEsc is not transported ?
    Claudio

  • Update on Management View in VIRSA Compliance Calibrator 5.2

    Hello,
    is there a way to delete the Data for the Management View in VIRSA Compliance Calibrator 5.2 and then make a full new data load.
    When I select Full Synchronisation and Management Reports in the Schedule Analysis, the system does not update the Management View correctly, the Management Report shows still roles which are already deleted in the SAP-System.
    Thanks

    Hi,
         You can do a Full sync of Users and Roles first which will be ovewrite and then run the Batch Risk Analysis Management Reports.
          You can try this exercise first if it does not work then go ahead with Alpesh's advice.
    Thanks
    Darshan

Maybe you are looking for