GR Discrepancy Processing

We receive shipment notifications from our suppliers when goods leave their plants. Most of the goods-in-transit are pooled for logistical reasons. Unfortunately not all of the goods that left the supplier's plant arrive at our facilities i.e. they are lost in transit. We are looking for a way to advise our supplier's of what we have physically received. Internally we call this a discrepancy note. It is a manual process today and I am convinced that SAP can help with this process. I have looked at missing parts check ... but this doesn't seem to be quite right.
Any suggestions?

Hello Ian,
How your business treats this missing parts in terms of responsibility. Is it responsibility for your company or your supplier? I mean are you going to pay for missing parts as well or you will not pay to vendor for missing parts.
If you are paying for missing parts then you need to receive as full qty and later write off the missing qty eighter by scrapping or physical inventory or issue to particular allocated cost center.
If you are not paying for missing parts then you create delivery for full qty but show receipt as only actual qty.
Hope this helps.
Regards
Arif Mansuri

Similar Messages

Confirmation process in SRM does not work whenever there is a discrepancy

Hello,
we are on SRM 5.0 version with classic scenario(follow on documents in backed system - ECC 5.0). to procure maintainence service user cretes a shopping cart by selecting describe requirements method and UOM at times in incorrectly asssigned as EA so upon shopping cart approval a follow on ducument (purchase requistion) is created in ECC as per config set up(in SRM). Buyer while coverting this purchase requisition to PO rectifies this erroe and chages the UOM of meausre to Hr and send a PO to vendor.
we are not bale to use confirmation feature in SRM to perform receipt of this service. is this how system works? any configration or a BADI needs to be usd to allow to perform confirmation in SRM even tough there is discrepancy in shopping cart UOM and Purcahse requsition UOM.
when thre is change in UOM in ECC that Purchase
*Confirmation process in SRM does not work whenever there is a discrepancy (i.e. different UM )between Shoping cart and Purchase Requisition related to that Shoping cart.*
we donot use serive option in SRM and donnot MM service module in ECC.
any help on this will be much appreciated.
Thanks,
sairam

The Reset Firefox feature can fix many issues by restoring Firefox to its factory default state while saving your essential information.
Note: ''This will cause you to lose any Extensions, Open websites, and some Preferences.''
To Reset Firefox do the following:
#Go to Firefox > Help > Troubleshooting Information.
#Click the "Reset Firefox" button.
#Firefox will close and reset. After Firefox is done, it will show a window with the information that is imported. Click Finish.
#Firefox will open with all factory defaults applied.
Further information can be found in the [[Reset Firefox – easily fix most problems]] article.
Did this fix your problems? Please report back to us!

Purchase Order Items open vs ME2M discrepancy

First posting so if this is not the right section please move this topic. Was the closest I could come to correct forum placement.
Hello all, I am in the process of setting up BPM to monitor u201CN* of Purchase Order Items openu201D from various plant locations and I am noticing the number BPM gives is different than what the system you give if I used ME2M.
For example: I am setting up BPM to monitor Number of Purchase Order Items Open for plant location 2102. The set up is scarce and I only have a few fields filled out in the set-up:
-Document Type u2013 Single Value u2013 NB, UB, FO, ZPC, ZGR
-Plant (Item) u2013 2102
-Doc. Category u2013 F (Purchase Order)
-All of fields are left blank
When this runs I will get an example of 1487 (it changes on an hourly basis so I canu2019t give a static value).
When I try to verify this number using ME2M I get a value of 1237. A difference of 250.
The configuration I am using for ME2M is as follows:
-Plant u2013 2102
-Scope of List u2013 ALLES
-Selection Parameters u2013 WE101
-Document Type - NB, UB, FO, ZPC, ZGR
-All other fields at left blank
Any reason for this discrepancy? The closest I can guess is SAP is pulling in some additional information OR my configuration is incorrect. Anybody run into this issue that has some tips?
Thank you
-nic

I know that ME2M has nothing to due to with BPM.
I am confused as to why when I set up BPM, in Solution Manager, to monitor Purchase Orders that are open I am getting a different number than when I use the transaction ME2M in SAP ECC.
For example:
When the process runs in Solution Manager I get back 1425 open POs
When I go into SAP ECC and use the transaction ME2M it will only pull up 1175 open POs
Somewhere along the lines I am missing or adding 250 POs. The current setup (listed above; not sure if BPM is configured the same for everyone) is listed above.
I have tried various set-up options in both BPM Solution Manager and SAP ECC (ME2M) but can't seem to find where these additional numbers are coming from.
Thank you
-nic

Error log in Process chains...

hai friends,
am getting this error log messages while running the process chains...
There is a discrepancy between the confirmation and deletion of qRFC-LUWs
Message no. RSQU016
Diagnosis
When data was confirmed and deleted in the qRFC queue, the system found a discrepancy between the number of newly confirmed LUWs ( 2282) and the number of LUWs to be deleted ( 3424).
Where more LUWs are to be deleted than were previously confirmed, a previous delete attempt was terminated.
The LUWs were confirmed but not completely deleted from the qRFC and tRFC tables. The confirmation already ensures that the data is not transferred into the BW again with a subsequent request.
Delta extraction was continued.
Procedure
You do not need to do anything urgently.
If the message also arises during all subsequent delta requests, contact SAP Support with the message number at hand. In this case, there is a danger that the qRFC and tRFC tables run at full capacity, which may also affect other applications.
please help me friendds...

Refer to the OSS note: 583086
Also you can refer to the smililar kind of discussion in this link:
Discrepancy between the confirmation and deletion of qRFC-LUWs
Hope this helps..

Invoice Verification process with multiple payments

Please advise us on the Invoice Verification process in case of multiple payments required for single Quantity Purchase Order Lines. [ i.e. If the quantity of Purchase is 1 and we need to process multiple invoices involving partial amount of the PO value, we end up in decimal errors in many cases. ]
For e.g. we had a case were the Total PO amount was 7638, against quantity 1. A partial invoice was raised for amount 7545. We were unable to determine the exact quantity in the invoice document to derive the said amount. This was due to the limitation in the quantity field which is only supporting 3 decimals. Subsequent to this, we need to round off and also this caused problems in the next payment lot. The issue becomes more complicated when there is header discount , freight etc. specified in the PO Header Conditions.
This resulted in the discrepancy between Goods Receipt and Invoice Receipt Amounts for such POs.
Please throw us some light to tackle this issue as per the best practices available in SAP.
Also in this relation, Is it possible to enforce Quantity Tolerance in PO.

HI,
What you can do to over come such problem, is Put the Value Figure in Quantity field & Quantity in Net price field,
As the Qty is 1, The total Amount paid to vendor will be same & no Need of calculating decimal.
While making GRN, Put the actual Invoice value as qty.
Hope this serves the purpose.
Regards
Mascot

Discrepancy in report execution duration

Hello,
Everyday we are executing audit reports which tells us report execution time for all our daily scheduled reports. Here we have observed some discrepancy between the time shown in the instance history verses auditing report's data. For example, if XYZ report took 120 seconds to execute, our auditing report shows 110 seconds only (-10 sec difference); however instance status in report history shows 120 sec only.
Here are environment details:
Product: SAP BI 4.0 SP6 Patch 6
Server OS: Windows Server 2008 R2
CMS DB: Oracle 11g R2
Auditing DB: Oracle 11g R2
We would like to know why there is a difference? Please advise!
Regards,
Daya Jha

Issue resolved after doing multiple activity.
- Adding 2 new cluster in PRD environment, After refering Server sizing Guide from SAP
- Adding 4 new Web Intelligence Processing Server in PRD environment
- Assign Static port in all 4 Nodes, Previously it was Dynamic Ports
- Proper spiliting of APS as per SAP APS Sliting KBA (1792286 ,1694041)
- Change Maximum Connection Paremeter in Web Intelligence Processing Server, Because we have more Web Intelligence Business user to view the Web Intelligence reports.By Default SAP provided 50 Connections.
- Change in Tomcat Parameters like
Parameter                Old Value      New Value
XX:MaxPermSize      384 M          512 M
Maximum Memory     2,048           4,096
maxThreads              200              900
Thanks,
Daya

Issue in processing IBAN in FLB2

Hi Experts,
In transaction FLB2 for the lockbox record type 6 record should match the structure of FLB26 which is as given below.
Structure: FLB26 (BAI-II format: lockbox record type 6, new check)
Field
Type
Length
Description
DR001
NUMC
1
Record Type for Lockbox
DR002
NUMC
3
Batch Number for Lockbox (Bundle Number)
DR003
NUMC
3
Batch Item Number for Lockbox
DR004
NUMC
10
Remittance Amount (Payment Amount) for Lockbox
DR005
CHAR
9
Remitter Identifier 1: Transit Routing Number for Lockbox
DR006
CHAR
12
Remitter Identifier 2: Account Number for Lockbox
DR007
NUMC
9
Check Number
DR008
CHAR
35
Data Element Type CHAR Length 35
The program (Transaction: FLB2) uses the value from field DR005 (Bank Key) and DR006 (Account Number) to determine the customer based on bank details (Table: KNBK) and proceed with further processing. Consider below two records with and without IBAN.
DR001
DR002
DR003
DR004
DR005
DR006
DR007
DR008
Without
IBAN
6
001
001
0000776783
123456789
123456789012
ABC401065
With IBAN
6
001
001
0000080203
987654321
00AB76Z05034
ABC701063
AB76Z0503445110000000000019
In the case of the record without IBAN, DR005 is 123456789(Bank key) and DR006 is 123456789012(Account number). Based on this information, the query on KNBK returns a customer.
In the case where IBAN details are passed, the fields DR005(Bank key) & DR006(Account number) contains the wrong value.Based on these values i dont get customer from table KNBK.
i can get correct Bank account and Bank key for the record with IBAN using FM CONVERT_IBAN_2_BANK_ACCOUNT.
IBAN:AB76Z0503445110000000000019
Bank Account Number
000000000019
Bank Control Key
Z
Bank Country
AB
Bank Key
0503445110
If i use the bank account and bank key received from this FM to get the customer from table KNBK , i have the customer.
but this cannot be corrected in structure FLB26 since the field DR005 in structure FLB26 is 9 characters and the Bank Key received from FM is 10 characters. The possible length of the bank key can be upto 15 characters as well. The processing fails because of this discrepancy.
Can any one tell me for the record types with IBAN how can we process IBAN for posting?

Hi Kevin,
        1. Please check your Archive directory name. You may be ging some wrong name (Spelling mistake).
        2. check you sould have an authorization to read, delete or archive the files from the FTp server
        3. If you want to archive the files on the FTP server, set the Archive Files on FTP Server indicator(check box) in Sender File Adapter. If you do not set the indicator, the files are archived in the Adapter Engine file system.
Thanks.
Edited by: Jyothi Anagani on Jun 15, 2010 10:19 AM

Third party PO Process -Looking for better solutions

what would be best solution for the below business process
We have one corporate headquarters(A) which has 3 plants(Plants X,Y and Z).
Corp.HQ (A) deals negotiation with one supplier directly and buys the materials and responsible for the payment.
but the goods should be directly delivered to the plants ...not to Corp.HQ
At the same time the receiving plants,intern have to pay to the corp.HQ for the same.
I can think of 2 step process for this process
Step 1 : Creating Third party PO between Corp.HQ and Supplier
Step 2 : Creating a Stock transport order /Intercomp order between Corp.HQ and receiving plants
But is there any solution with Single step or any other better solution for this process?
Thanks in advance
Thanks and Regards,
Kesavan

The first step is not ok in my opinion, since the goods will be posted for consumption, so there will be no stock to be transferred via the intercompany STO (2nd step in your process).
In SAP it is possible to use central purchasing organisation. What if the HQ would be represented in the purchasing process as a central purch. org. and it would issue a "normal" PO to the vendor (one PO: vendor --> manufacturing plant)?
In this case you should solve the payment process only (HQ --> vendor; plant --> HQ) - if the HQ would be set as invoicing party in the PO, the payment between HQ and plant would be solved. In the vendor's SO the HQ should be set as payer/invoicing address, the HQ would receive the invoice and eneter it w/o any PO (but enter the real PO number as reference).
You would need some development to integrate the two incoming invoices not to have discrepancy.
Just an idea...

Process Order API -Reason for change either not provided ...

I'm calling Process Order API to update shipped_quantity for a RMA receipt. Nothing has changed about this code but now I am getting :
"The reason for this change is either not provided or invalid. (OBJECT=ORDER) "
We installed a patch last weekend to speed up Ship Confirms I wonder if we went backwards in OM. Any suggestions ???
Process Order code snipet:
l_header_rec.header_id := p_header_id;
l_header_rec.operation := oe_globals.g_opr_update;
l_line_tbl(1) := OE_ORDER_PUB.G_MISS_LINE_REC;
l_line_tbl(1).line_id := p_line_id;
l_line_tbl(1).shipped_quantity := p_rec_qty;
l_line_tbl(1).shipping_quantity_uom := 'EA';
l_line_tbl(1).flow_status_code := 'RETURNED';
l_line_tbl(1).operation := oe_globals.g_opr_update;
Call Process_Order
OE_Order_pub.Process_Order(
p_api_version_number => 1
.

Please review the documentation about process order API as there are several things you might want to revisit about this call to process order:
Following are my observations:
- you are updating shipped quantity. I think this field shoud not be updated using the API. As it shoudl be updated by a process(shipping process)
-You are also trying to update the flow_status_code. This field is also not supposed to be updated.
My suggestion is that you try to follow the same process step by step that one should follow to update the shipped_quantity on RMA order. (e.g. receiving the item against the order using inventory api's or probably shipping the order line using the shipping api's). I am afraid, using the given code you might create data discrepancy.
Hope this helps,
Nitin Darji

File Size Discrepancy Between Photoshop & the Finder

I'm trying to be as brief as I can, so here goes. The specific application (PS) is irrelevant, I think. This is about why an app shows one file size & the Finder shows a different file size. In this case, it's a huge difference, due to the file being an image.
I imported into PS CS, from a CD, an original image, which the Finder shows as 269.4 MB. The file format is TIFF, and the bit-depth is 16, not 8. The Finder shows it as a "TIFF Document." Now. I did a Save As and edited that as a master image file. So, I have two files: the original and the master.
I substantially cropped (deleted) pixels in the master file. So, at the same 16-bit depth, the master file should be smaller in size than the original. Right? However, the Finder shows the file to be 433.6 MB in size! Photoshop shows the file to be a more realistic 185.8 MB in size. Why is the Finder showing such a huge file size? Why is the Finder storing 247.8 MB more than I need? The Finder shows this file as an "Adobe Photoshop TIFF file," so there has been a change in format. The file is flattened; no layers, etc., are involved.
One clue could be that the Finder is storing the larger file size to accommodate Photoshop. If one multiplies 185.8 MB by 3, the result is close to the 433.6 MB figure. The 3 stands for the three color channels (red, green, blue) of each pixel (data element) in the image.
The original image, however, is stored correctly by the Finder. Photoshop and the Finder agree on the 269.4 MB file size. If the above scenario were true, the Finder would be storing the original file at three times the size as shown in Photoshop. In other words, there would be consistency in what the Finder is doing.
I suppose I could just ignore the discrepancy, but I have hundreds of images to process, and I don't want to have to go into PS every time to get a true reading of file sizes. The Finder should be accurate in doing that.
I may be in the wrong forum re: Photoshop, but here I think I can find some expertise re: the Finder, since the Finder's storing procedures are in question, to my mind. It's definitely an app/OS interface problem, as I see it. Simply, I edit a file downward in data, save it, yet the Finder saves it at a larger size.

...do you think a lot of cloning & healing brush might have added to the file size, even though I cropped the image?
Yes, depending on your History settings. The more you work on an image, the more history it accumulates. The more different states and sanpshots you save in the History palette, the bigger the file gets as you work on it, because you're storing (within the file) complete information about the file's state before and after every individual change you make to it. What I don't recall is whether that all gets saved to the file in a Save As, or whether the history is flushed each time the file is Saved.
I should warn you that I am by NO stretch of the imagination a PS expert. I was still using PS 5.0.2 until last February, when I upgraded to CS2 (knowing it will be years before I have enough hardware horsepower to run CS3). I'm a rank beginner with CS2, and if someone else wants to jump in here and point out that I'm all wrong, it will be no surprise to me. And because I never used CS, I don't know whether what I'm describing in CS2 is even relevant here.

Intercompany STO Process

Hi Experts
I am in to Intercompany STO process with one step Goods issue procedure.
When i tried to post PGI for the NLCC type D.O obtained the below error.
Error Message
Fld selectn for mvmt type 645 / acct 6005100 differs for Business Area (033)
Please advise how to fix.
Regards
RG
Edited by: R G on Jan 10, 2011 4:40 AM

Hi
Field status group is maintined as: G003 Material Consumption accounts
Post Automatically is ticked.
I understand the Business Area field is not maintained (suppress) in the account group of G003.
But, it is in movement type is maintaied as Optional.
However no requirement to use the Business Area in overall.
So, where should i turn off it in relevant to movement. Thus wouldn't cause the discrepancy against the GL.
Rgds
RG
Edited by: R G on Jan 10, 2011 6:49 AM
Edited by: R G on Jan 10, 2011 7:07 AM

Discrepancy report on shipped order

hii
dude
can u suggest me ....
what is standard oracle report for ......
Discrepancy report on shipped order

Dudeee..
Not sure whether this will help you but you can check on shipping user guide below :
http://download-east.oracle.com/docs/cd/B25516_11/current/acrobat/115wshug.pdf
and check chapter 11 Report Document and Processes, it lists out the standard reports and documents used in shipping modules

The difference of sinad.vi between Sound & Vibration Toolkit and Singal Processing Toolkit

Hi, I'm confused with the the difference of sinad.vi between Sound & Vibration Toolkit and Singal Processing Toolkit.
When the input waveform is single tone, the output is almost the same, but raises much discrepancy while a certain distribution of the spectrum. Does the sinad.vi have some limitation to the input signal? Did I miss some setting of the terminals? Hope someone can give me some suggestion.
Attachments:
SINAD(Front).png ‏85 KB
SINAD(Block).png ‏77 KB

Hi, here's the subVI for the test! Hope someone can give me some suggestion.
Attachments:
SINAD.vi ‏96 KB

In process Inspection Lot Qty and Actual Lot quantity difference.

Hi Experts,
In case of In process Inspection
Scenario : 1. Production Order created, released but before saving the qty is changed.
2. Production Order created released and saved. Then qty is changed in Change Prod order txn.
These scenarios are causing a discrepancy in Inspection Lot Qty and Actual Lot quantity. Is there any method to avoid this ?
This can be made correct in Inspection lot by resetting the sample calculation. But once confirmation has started for Prodn Order (not necessarily QC operation) or RR has been done resetting is not possible.
Is this the std behavior ? Disallowing the resetting once RR done seems OK, but even if any of the operation in Prodn Order is confirmed it still give status error while resetting. Canceling all the confirmation all the way back also does not solve the problem.
Any suggestions ?
Regards
Joe

Hi
Although your suggestion is valid, it is not practical from user point of view.
Moving this thread to QM forum.
Rgds

Ambiguity in use of MIGO in Subcontracting process

Hi
I could not able to use MIGO for transfer of components to SC vendor with reference to Subcontracting order. (using 'transfer posting' application and in reference, 'purchase order' is not been provided to use 541 mvt with ref to SC PO).
Whereas this can be done with MB1B; here transfer of components from unrestricted use to stock provided to vendor can be done with reference to subcontracting PO can be done (here in top, reference to purchase order is provided as push button)
Also to transfer components from a third party vendor directly to SC vendor; I can not able use MIGO with 101 movement to refer 'PO for components'; even though I could able to process it finally i am getting an error message that ' there is discrepancy in material document and components PO for vendor'; of course I have checked for it any messages with error and settings for field status and could not able to trace.
But this can be done easily using t-code MB01 without any such error
So I finally concluded that to to transfer componets to SC vendor with reference to Subcontracting PO (using 541 mvt) or to transfer components directly from a another vendor with reference to PO created, for components (using 101 mvt) one can not use MIGO; instead one shoud use MB1B and MB01 respectly.
Am I right?
Message was edited by:
srinivas vandana

Dear Srinivas,
<i>'Also to transfer components from a third party vendor directly to SC vendor; I can not able use MIGO with 101 movement to refer 'PO for components'; even though I could able to process it finally i am getting an error message that ' there is discrepancy in material document and components PO for vendor'; of course I have checked for it any messages with error and settings for field status and could not able to trace.'</i>
As I understand:
1. You purchase raw material from vendorA
2. Tha parts are received by vendorB (subcontractor; because this vendor uses the components).
3. You want to map this process in SAP
If you create your PO you can use 'SC vendor' thickbox on 'Delivery address' tab. If you use this and you receive the goods in MIGO your components will be get to the subcontractor's special stock (hopefully).
BR
Csaba

GR Discrepancy Processing

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for