Customer Disputes not closing automatically

Hi,
I am currently checking an issue why my customer disputed items are not closing automatically after the invoices have been paid.
- The regular financial disputes close automatically
- The casy type and the correct status profile
- the status profile is set to close directly from new status to to be collected / then closed
- The status profile has changed after initial set up
- I ran the process bufffer program and no result, the disputes are still open.
- We have activate the customer disputed objects properly as far as i can see.
Thanks for the assist
regards',
Richard

I concur with the mesgs above that for customer disputed cases, it gives additional time for AR analysts to investigate the claims. And if it actually turns out to be a dispute, then eventually it will result in creation of AR residual and in turn a Dispute case.
In scenario mentioned of multiple disputes for the same invoice, you need not have multiple dispute cases open, unless its a specific business requirement. You anyways have the disputed amount and current disputed amount filled correctly and make appropriate use of reason code and root cause code to depict this scenario in just one dispute case itself.
However if you still want to create more than one dispute case for the same AR item, in that case, please either use the splitting functionality to accurately depict the disputes in AR as well as FSCM.

Similar Messages

FSCM- Dispute cases were not closed automatically for credit disputed amounts

Dear All,
We are creating the dispute cases for overpayment or un-applied cash payments (that is credit document) through FDM_AUTO_CREATE. But those credit dispute cases were not closed automatically after I cleared the documents through F-26 or F-32.
We are running FDM_PROCESS_BUFFER program through batch job for every hour. And we made correct configuration for automatic dispute case close in SPRO. Also the debit disputes were closed automatically.
Especially we are facing this issue for credit special g/l transaction (partial/residual/charge of difference clearing) documents.
Note : I can see two changes automatically in credit dispute cases these are, 1) Disputed amount get zero 2) Disputed objects (that is credit document) is automatically removed (Attributes => Linked Objects => Disputed Objects) in the credit dispute cases
Can you please help me how to resolve this issue.
Thank you in advance.
Thanks & Regards,
KVP

Dear Experts,
Can I have solution for this issue.
Thanks & Regards,
KVP

Purchase Requsition is not closing automatically During ME59 PO creation

Hi,
We are using PO creation through ME59,
In ME59 we have set the indicator 1 Set reqs. to "closed"
In PR we have 1 qty and in PO was created for 1 qty. But the PR was not closed.
When we check the F1 help for the filed it say it will work with respect to the rounding value. as for my concer the PR qty 1 was fulfilled by po with 1 qty creation. I dont know why the PR was not set to Closed automatically.
If we try 2 Set reqs. to "closed" It is working
Can any once explaing why it is not wroking for indicator 1
Regards
Palani

Is your order unit and requisition unit same ?

PR not closing automatically

Suppose I have a PR which have 10 qty, whole qty is converted to PO using ME57.
Still PR is not getting closed automatically.
Means closed indicator in PR is not getting updated.
System is not allowing to create new PO against this PR because we have an error message for this.
How the closed indicator will be updated automatically?
Please advise.
Thanks,

the closed indicator is only set if you flag the field in ME59N for this purpose, or if you do it manually while coverting the PR to a PO.
In any other case the field in the requisition remains unset, as SAP looks directly into field of open PR quantity.
However, SAP has a report to set the closed indicator
for this see OSS Note 206870 - Set Ordered purchase requisitions to completed

MATERIAL CODES IN PO OF CUSTOMER DATA NOT APPEARING AUTOMATICALLY

Hi Experts,
We are facing a problem regarding feeding of material codes in customer data in PO. Previously in PO we use to give scrap material number & if we press enter automatically some scrap codes (i.e. 2804020001, 2804020005, 2804020018) was getting updated in customer data of PO, but as per management instruction we have hold the old codes and created new one. Please see if we can get that material codes automatically in new scrap codes also. It will save our time and will increase our efficiency without manual feeding faults.
So I want to know in customer data of PO i.e the scrap materials codes are maintained in SPRO settings or it is stored in some table
S.No.     Old Scrap Code     New Equivalent Scrap Code
1     2804020001     2804020102, 2804020039
2     2804020005     2804020103, 2804020040
3     2804020018     2804020106, 2804020107
Regards,
Manjax

Customer Data is maintained in Item Detail of PO
Regards,
Manjunath

SolMan Charm: wbch and customizing TR not always automatically released

Dear solman experts,
In Charm, when users save a status linked to the background action "release_all" in order to release their transport requests, the transports are not always released.
I know this could happen with ToC and also with TR (mostly for workbench), but this is happening to lots of customizing transports.
I tested it with some small configuration (like for instance a TR with roles in it), the release works fine.
So the configuration of solman seems ok.
Does anyone have already faced the same issue and has an idea on what to do in order to avoid this issue?
Thanks for your help,
Kr,
Alice

Hello Khalil,
In the maintenance cycle, the ongoing phase is "development with release" so it is ok.
Also, all tasks have already been released as one of the previous status/action triggered the creation of a ToC (and for that the check of all released tasks is performed). So we have like two testing cycle (a first one with ToC where all tasks are already released) and if it is ok you can then set a status which triggers the "release_all" action to release the orginial transport requests.
What is really strange is that in the tasklist, the release request activity is correctly launched but has an error " /TMWFLOW/TRANSPORT_N643" which says that :
- Diagnosis --> The request BRDK922172 has already been released (but it is not the case)
- System Response --> The system does not allow you to create a transport of copies. (but it is not the action concerned here "the activity on which I receive this error is "release_all""
- Procedure--> It is not usually necessary to create a transport of copies for a request that has already been released.Perhaps you entered an incorrect request, in which case you have to enter a different one.
I do not get what is this error message about. And what is really strange is that for some transport requests the release works and for other not (but more and more are not working)
Have you an idea?
Thanks a lot for your help,
Alice

Nested MXML Tags of Same Type not Closed Automatically

Suppose you have a VGroup tag, and you want to nest another VGroup inside of it. In earlier versions of FB, as soon as you typed the closing '>' character, FB completed the whole tag for you:
<s:VGroup>
<s:VGroup>
</s:VGroup>
</s:VGroup>
However, this doesn't work anymore. This issue happens when the two tags are of the same type. An HGroup inside a VGroup, for example, autocompletes fine.

Hi,
This is known issue http://bugs.adobe.com/jira/browse/FB-33477. Thanks for posting the issue.
-Divith

Automatic cancellation of Custom declaration not happening in GTS

Hi All
I need your help, when i am cancelling my proforma invoice (F9) in R/3, custom declaration not cancelled automatic in GTS, I know i can cancel the custom declaration manually but again i want to cancel the declaration automatically as soon as the proforma invoice cancelled in R/3
Please advise

hi,
I think you have already received an answer from support but I put it here again.
You have to use invoices with SD document category 'U' and to cancel the proforma use the menu function 'complete'.
Balazs

How do I automate a custom component not implementing UIComponent?

I have tried using Adobe's instructions for automating custom components by creating a delegate class to use as a mixin, but
1) the super() statement in the delegate of the constructor is not recognized by the compiler,
2) I am not able to use a DisplayObject as an argument to init(),
3) I am not able to return the custom component as a IAutomationObject from the parent component's getAutomationChildAt method.
Is it simply not possible to automate a custom component not implementing UIComponent?

If you look in the library panel, there should be an entry for your custom component - probably something like CustomComponent1.mxml. Drag this out onto the artboard to create a new instance of the component.
In the case of a custom component, you can't change much on the second instance. If you have something like a text input skin though, you can change the text it is displaying for each instance.
We are working on making this sort of thing easier in the future, so stay tuned

Custom output type is not triggering automatically

Hi Experts,
We have created a custom output type for Delivery idoc processing.
it is working fine for all ship to patrys.
but from last 2 months onwards we are facing problem for one ship to party.
output type is not triggering automatically but for rest of ship to party's it is triggering automatically.
we have maintained conditions and also selected trigger immediately.
earlier it was working fine, but from last 2 months onwards we are facing this problem.
Thanks
Sai

Hi,
Goto the Delivery document and in the Output screen check the Determine analysis for output.
There it will clearly show what is missing .
Please check that and revert back if you need more clarification.
regards,
santosh

My phone get sick not charcing battery openıng and closing automaticly sometimes screen paused ı started to sick for my phone and also in chigago apple store didnt help me they didnt give me enpugh information when ım buying that phone !!!!!

My phone get sick not charcing battery, openıng and closing automaticly, sometimes screen paused... ı started to sick for my phone and also in chigago apple store didnt help me they didnt give me enough information when ım buying that phone !!!!! right now ı cant charge my phone and also top of the bottom not working well and ı didnt crushed my phone this apple 4s like cheap phone for me even cheap phones more qualitier than my phone ım so sad

Thanks for the positive feedback. Best thing to do is write a letter to that store or something of that nature to tell them you appreciated it. It really tells us how we're doing and what we could work on by getting feedback like that and we will respond to you as a way of saying thanks.

Why SO Header not get closed automatically after all SO lines get closed?

Hi all :
Do you know the reason, why some SO Header still as Booked Status, even All the SO lines are already closed ?
If I see the Workflow status the SO Header is in Status = Deferred and Activity = Wait
And I can close it manually if I rewind the Activity in the Workflow, but I want to know why the SOs not get closed automatically.
Thank you in advance
Edited by: Daniel on Jan 18, 2011 8:41 AM

Have you scheduled the concurrent request to use Workflow Background Processor to Process OEOH ? What is the frequency? Has it run after the lines got closed?
Also, check the value of the WAIT attribute in the OEOH workflow? By default, it is set to close headers at the end of month.
For more detail please see Note:141919.1 on Metalink.
Also refer to metalink document # 397364.1 which details how to change the WAIT attributes.
Hope this helps,
Sandeep Gandhi

FSCM-DM Customer-Disputed (how to identify)

I know Customer-Dispute cases aren't process integrated with AR, but our company wants them to automatically close when the AR in the Cust-Disp folder clears. Is there a table that I can easily identify if the case is process integrated (disputed item) or not (customer-disputed).
My understanding of Customer-Disputed functionality is that it's way more flexible, not process integrated, and the case is supposed to be initiated by the customer. Does anyone have a different interpretation ? It seems SAP left this one not too clearly defined and it's very confusing to explain to our users. I want to simplify it if possible. Be happy to hear any other opinions on this functionality. Thanks,,
Joe

Hi Mark,
Your scenario 1 , I assume is a CDIS case that has no AR items. I really can't think of a scenario to create a case with no AR like that but I know it's possible. Perhaps the customer calls with a general complaint not tied to any AR ?... I think all CDIS cases are supposed to be initiated by the customer. That is the key distinction. Every example that SAP provides, it's the customer initiating the CDIS case. I think that is important because then you can report how much AR is in dispute and how much of that was initiated by the customer. I've often thought that maybe they created this mostly for biller direct so that when the customer creates a dispute case it's classified differently. Do you agree that it's supposed to be the customer initiating the CDIS cases ? I'm not sure I follow scenrio 2, but I know if you want to dispute credit items the system requires a CDIS case. In scenario 3, the original invoice would be linked to the case in the CDIS folder and the CDIS amount would be different. When the original invoice clears this case can be closed automatically because even if they shortpay the residual debit will get a new case. At our company all residual debits get a dispute case automatically after lockbox runs.
The reason our company needs a way to close these automatically is because we have thousands of them, too many to do manually. The system was designed in such a way that residual credits are getting cases after the lockbox runs. That means all unapplied cash is sitting in a CDIS case. I think I've finally convinced them to stop creating cases automatically like that for credits but we still have a ton of CDIS cases.
Another feature of CDIS is to create cases for cleared AR items. We are designing the program that auto-closes CDIS cases to skip certain categories. We wouldn't want to close a case if it was intentionally created with cleared AR items. So I agree that auto-closing does not make sense for all CDIS cases. And these will have to be closed manually.
The problem is that our AR people weren't really trained to know the distinction between CDIS cases and process integrated cases. And SAP doesn't do a great job of clearly explaining CDIS. But I have concluded that the key distinction is it should be initiated by the customer. As opposed to when a customer short pays , that is initiated internally. Interesting to hear your thoughts on the topic as it seems SAP just says here's this new functionality, it's more flexible. But doesn't really tell us the best practice for using it. Thanks,
Joe

Dunning Block for Customer Disputed objects

Dear Colleagues,
I come with what seems to be a simple but interesting requirement from my customer, that I believe can turn out to be an interesting subject for discussion and knowledge exchange.
My customer requires having the possibility of creating several dispute cases, at different times with different partial amounts and different reasons, related to the same invoice. This is possible only through u201Ccustomer disputed amountu201D. With this functionality I can create several disputes linked to the same invoice, with partial amounts and different reasons.
The tricky part comes when the requirement also asks for automatic dunning block for the invoice, for each one of the dispute cases. Here I face with two basic problems:
1) There is only one dunning block at invoice level. (an invoice cannot have several dunning block reasons at the same time.
2) The automatic document changes through dispute cases is not for "customer disputed objects". It only creates and updates the dunning blocks on invoices that belong to a traditional dispute case ("Disputed Objects").
Has anyone faced a similar requirement before? any insights or suggestions regarding this process?
Thank you very much
Best Regards,
Luis Angeli

Hi Luis,
Customer disputed objects are meant to capture customer disputes prior to the receipt of payment.
They can be used to create many disputes for a single invoice.
However a single invoice can only be disputed once.
Further to this, if different parts of an invoice are disputed, the dunning block should only be removed once all issues against the invoice are resolved.
It could be an idea to create a single dispute against an invoice, and then get different people to resolve the different issues.
You may also want to consider how you are creating your invoices - it could be that you split them down further so there is only a single dispute against an invioce.

SAP Production Order not closing

Hi there,
I am running the COHV with Complete parameter in the background, and it does pick up several TECO orders from the past, like say from 2009 which are not closed but it does not process them to CLSD status.
I am seeing some entries in COHV, CO1P, COFC transactions - I picked a few randomly to check.
The order qty is not always equal to the delivered qty - Again a random test
The consumption qty on the components is not always equal to the required qty, which leaves reservation open - random check
Is all the above causing my order not to close ? where do I see the error log, when I try to close the order. I wrote the above issues based on my random check.
Thank you

Hi SAP Process,
When you run COHV to close the orders, you can see the log with the list of orders that have not been closed.
To see in detail what has happened you will need to check order by order.
Other option will we to evaluate each situation separatelly. You can check COGI, CO1P, see open reservations, check if you have TR or TO if you use WM, etc.. Once each situation is cleaned, you will be able to closed most of your production orders. It is quite common to create a custom report to make all these checks (COGI, TR/TOs, etc) and closed the orders.
Kind Regards,
Mariano

Customer Disputes not closing automatically

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for