Rules-based GATP with sales BOM

Hi,
with reference to the following thread which asks the same question, but although in "answered" status, actually contains no answer to the final question...
GATP Question
We are investigating the possibility of using GATP with rules-based ATP to propose a sourcing plant. The result of this is of course a subitem in the sales order.
My question is, is there any restriction to using the sales BOM with rules-based ATP? We use the sales BOM currently to insert the packaging items into the sales order. From a previous project, I have in the back of my mind that there was a restriction in this respect, and that with the subitem from the GATP result, it was not possible to explode the sales BOM.
I cannot find what I recall to be the explicit SAP-help statement in this respect. Anybody with experience in this?
Regards,
Douglas

The current situation is as follows:
We have the saleable product A in plants X and Y, with a sales BOM in each of the plants, for the packaging items B and C. When product A is entered in the sales order in, say, plant X, the sales BOM is exploded and items B and C are inserted into the sales order. ATP is done in R/3, and if there is no availability in X, then the plant can be manually changed to Y, but each of the subitems from the sales BOM must also be manually changed to Y.
Desired to be situation:
We implement GATP, with a rule to subsitute plant X with plant Y in the event that plant X has no stock. So the desired system response is: enter item A in the sales order with plant X, GATP subsitutes plant X with plant Y and generates a subitem for product A in plant Y. Now the sales BOM is exploded for the new subitem, generating the further subitems for B and C, also in plant Y.
Is this possible?

Similar Messages

GATP with Sales BOM

Hi Gurus,
We have a requirement to check ATP (GATP) when Sales BOM (order BOM) is used. I am looking for some inputs on how to setup this scenario and how to explode Sales bom.o
Appreciate your inputs.
Thanks,
BKN

Hi,
I know sales bom creates sub items in sales order and R-ATP cannot be used for sub items. Is there a possibility not explode BOM until ATP is completed for header item?
Can you someone please reply to this. It is urgent issue..
Thanks,
Niranjan

Rule Based GATP with Stock transfer order

Hi Experts,
I have activated the rule based with stock transfer GATP, but I have the following two issues
1. when I change sales order in EEC and make a ATP check , the system will not conisder the previous created stock transfer requisition and create a seperate stock transfer requisition, that is, if I trigger 10 times ATP check, the system will create another 10 stock transfer requisition. does anyone know how to let the system delete the previous stock transfer requisition , then create a new one, or using the existing stock transfer requisition?
2. the generated stock transfer requisition is always firmed, it causes if the sales order is deleted, the system can not delete the requisition via heuristic. how to let the system generate unfirmed stock transfer requisition?
thanks

Rick,
I have never researched this, so I don't know.
The reason I have never looked at this is because I would never want any other process to change supply elements generated by the GATP process. Once these elements are disturbed, then the confirmations of the Sales orders are also open to be disturbed. Regular runs of BackOrder Processing, which accompany most ATP solutions, can then change the sales docs with unpredictable results. Even without BOP, the next Sales person who re-ATPs the order might be in for an unpleasant surprise.
Best regards,
DB49

Rule based GATP Check

Hello experts,
Our team has configured rule based gatp check parameters and maintained condition technique, relevant rules with product substitution, location substitution, profile parameters and rule determination.
We are having four condition tables i.e. most specific to most generic and condition records are maintained for all the key combinations, whereas system is picking up the record, which is most generic.
Please let me know how the system picks up the condition record in rule based atp check.
Thanks and Regards,
Sai Dacha
9849030809

Hi Anupam,
Please find the comments.
Can you also check your check instruction and see if it has
--> "Activate RBA" and "Start immediately" check box checked for the check mode you guys are using and business event A
Comment:
Both the check boxes are checked for the relevant combination.
If you have this setting then I would like you to check in master data where you have created Integrated Rules:
Comment:
I've maintained only one rule, which is in valid periods.
Make sure you have maintained integrated rules correctly and assigned the correct location determination procedure.
Comment:
Checked both Production Substitution and Location determination procedures and their assignments.
--> Very basic point but no harm in checking, sometimes we miss very basic things: Do you have all the locations in APO and also products at those location which you want to populate in the sales order.
Comments:
All the combinations of products and locations are in APO.
Thanks,
Sai Dacha

3rd Part Dropship Scenario with Sales BOM

Hi
We have a 3rd Party Dropshipment scenario with Sales BOM with susequent Debit
Characteristics of Sales BOM
Sales BOM is created
Header Material is Valuated but non-inventorised (Accounting and costing view should exist)
Component Material is Valuated and inventorised
In Sales order, Pricing is done at the header material not at the components level
During Billing we get the COGS for the header material (cost coming from VPRS)
No VPRS exist at component level instead we have copy of VPRS just to capture the value in COPA for our reporting
Process
1. Sales Order created with Sales BOM exploded in sales order.
2. At the Item level Purchase requisition is created.
3. PR for the components is converted to PO
4. Vendor Delivers the components to Customer.
5. Statistical GR done in our system.
6. Invoicing is done in MIRO
7. We directly do the Billing. Billing is created at header level. Revenue and COGS is reported at Header level only.
We are stuck when we are doing the Subsequent Debit (can be for any unplanned cost). For Susequent Debit we are not able to report differential COPA at header level.
Normally whenever you do subsequent debit in case of 3rd party dropship for normal material, COPA document automatically attached to Billing. This is happening because of the behaviour of VPRS condition type. In our case VPRS only exists at header level and not at component level but replenishment is for components. Subsequent debit is also happening at component level. We need it to be reported at header level.
We need some solution to this.
Please advise
Regards
Neeraj
Edited by: NEERAJ BHARDWAJ on Dec 2, 2011 5:12 AM

Hi Raj,
Please clarified your requirement here, you mention that you wanted to valuated COGS at actual cost of PO? That sound more like actual costing here and what is the reason for this requirement?
Is this MTO with variant configuration?
If this is MTO with VC, Yes - we do cost Sales Order and here is the brief steps:-
Price Control S
a) Sales Order Creation - Normally when you save this will be costed and marked automatically. Note that condition type EK02 will represent the cost here
b) Run MRP based on Sales Order requirement which resulting planned orders, PR, etc
c) Convert PR-PO, Planned Order -> Production Order
d) Confirmations, GR on PO which valuated according to the SCE Costing in step a)
e) PGI will be based on the GR value on step d) which is also your SCE Costing
f) Any variance between PO and SCE need to be settle.
Thanks,
Ong Yang Lim

Rules Based ATP with Stock Transport Order

Hi All,
Can we use Rules Based ATP with Stock Transport Order..
Where to assign the business transaction to the STO order type ?
Regards,
Biswajit

Hi,
Please follow the link
Re: Rules based product substitution in STO
Thanks,
Pavan Verma

Rule Based GATP

Dear All,
I'm using Rule Based ATP check for Sales Order.
When I conduct ATP simulation in APO (SCM 4.0), the results are perfect. the check triggers the rule and displays schedule lines as per rule. (Location substitution).
But when I conduct availability check in Sales order (R/3 4.7), the results are completely different. For Sales Order at Warehouse, it confirms all the requirement irespective of transportation lane lead time from plant to warehouse. Moreover, when I save the sales order, the PReqs created at Warehouse are in future instead of PReqrel in past. (compared to requirement date). Ideally, the Preqs should have same date as that of requirement date and Preqrel should be created after deducting Transporation lead time and GR/GI time.
I would like to know, what parameters in Sales Order document are used to trigger the rule and how is it different from ATP simulation.
Thank you in advance.
Regards,
Bipin K Umarale

Hi
Take a look at the following SAP Note, it gives all the FAQ's on ATP configuration in R/3, hopefully it will help you with your problem:
[Note 547512 - FAQ: Customizing of the ATP in R/3|https://websmp230.sap-ag.de/sap(bD1lbiZjPTAwMQ==)/bc/bsp/spn/sapnotes/index2.htm?numm=547512&nlang=EN&smpsrv=https%3a%2f%2fwebsmp208%2esap-ag%2ede]
Regards
Ian

Problem with Sales BOM

Hello All,
The problem is related to Sales BOM where in the Item Category Group we maintain ERLA and the free item gets populated with the main item in the sales order with a different item category and the pricing is shown as statistical.
Now I want the system to show any error message or stop the next proceeding whenever the stock of the free item alongwith the main item or viceversa is not available or if there is any partial availability in case of free item & main item or viceversa.
Please suggest how to configure this or if any routine or user-exit need to be maintained for this.
Thanks & Regards
Priyanka Mitra

hi
check the Sale order User Exit and code your logic and make use of it

Implementing roles and rules based authorisation with Azure AD

Hi all,
I would greatly appreciate some input on feasibility and patterns I should look at for a complex technical requirement that I am currently tasked with designing.
We have a system that comprises a web and mobile app. In the past we have implemented session based authentication through ADAM and authorisation through custom business rules contained within the applications. The authentication mechanism is in the process
of being migrated to Azure AD and authorisation is planned to be moved to Azure AD for our next release.
Existing authorisation within our web application is already complex. We have users that belong to different groups with a range of permissions such as read, write or admin. Additionally each user is granted access to N customers and also N locations within
each customer. We have a requirement that any number of combinations of customers and locations be supported. Users also need to have different permissions for each entity, i.e. read access to customer 1 location 2, write access to customer 4 and administer
customer 7. Currently these privileges are maintained within a relational database and enforced as part of each PageLoad(). Essentially this is a combination of roles and rules based authorisation.
We are struggling to represent this complex matrix structure within Azure AD and efficiently implement the authorisation decision in Azure AD. The driver for this technical requirement is to provide re-usability of the authorisation component to other (as
yet unidentified) applications.
Currently the best option we have come up with is implementing custom attributes for each class of permissions and storing within this 2048 bit field a bitmask that represents whether this permission is granted for a given location (which has a many to one
relationship with customer).
Any help or comment would be gratefully received,
Phil

Hi
When "Advance routing" is used for Task assignment; the task service asserts the folllowing fact types : Task, PreviousOutcome and TaskAction to the rules engine. These facts gives all the reqd info about the task (like outcome of the participant, task stage .. etc)
Now in the defined ruleset; we can have rules as per our requirement that can extract info from the asserted fact types and assign task to the required/next participant.
Also note that we write the advance rules for exception cases only.
For example; let's say all participants have 2 possible Outcomes [COMPLETE, RECHECK]. We have defined the ideal task routing flow as :
Participant A -> Participant B -> Participant C. This is the flow when all participant selects "COMPLETE"
Now suppose B selects outcome as "RECHECK" then the task shld move back to A. So for this case only we need to write a advance rule.
Pls refer to the code sample at : http://download.oracle.com/technology/sample_code/hwf/workflow-106-IterativeDesign.zip
Also dev guide : refer to section 28.3.7.2 http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E14571_01/integration.1111/e10224/bp_hwfmodel.htm#BABBFEJJ
Thanks
Edited by: Kania on May 19, 2010 2:41 AM

Delivery and Invoicing of items with Sales BoM

I have created a sales Bom and all the items are excisable. After creating delivery when i copy to Outgoing excise invoice, the system does not llow me to add and i get error "There are excisable items with non cenvatable tax code"
All the items created even the components are exciseable but it doesnt allow to copy the same tax code to the components and doesn't allow to mke OEI. How can i create invoices in such case? SAP 2007B, PL10
Thanks

Hi Agranshu........
Whichever tax you are taking into the transaction please check the Tax Category in Tax Type of BED, Cess and HSCess component. I guess that is under Non Cenvat.
This error generally comes when then Tax Types are not under cenvat tax codes and we try to add the transaction for excisable commodity.............
Regards,
Rahul

Purchase reports for components of production BOM Based on Its Sales BOM

Hi all
I have sales BOM and the components of Sales BOM are production items having Production BOM and the components of production BOM are purchase items
My problem is when i create a sales order for my Sales BOM, i should be able to get a report for purchase items that is how much i have to purchase with out using MRP
pls anyone help me with approbriate queries
Thanks and Regards
Boopathi.T

Hi Boopathi,
You may try this one:
SELECT Distinct T1.Code, SUM(T0.Quantity * T1.Quantity) 'PO Qty', T2.DocNum
FROM dbo.RDR1 T0
INNER JOIN dbo.OITT T3 ON T3.TreeType = 'S' AND T3.Code = T0.ItemCode
INNER JOIN dbo.ITT1 T1 ON T1.Father = T3.Code
INNER JOIN dbo.ORDR T2 ON T2.DocEntry = T0.DocEntry
WHERE T2.DocNum LIKE '[%0\]%'
GROUP BY T1.Code, T2.DocNum
Thanks,
Gordon

Order creation with Sales BOM........

Hi there ,
If I maintain the MRP & work scheduling view in the material master & maintain <b>BOM with usage as <b>sales</b>.</b> Then can I create as process/production order of that material as there is no BOM with usage type production maintained in SAP........
Please enlighten me ........
Thanks
Kaushik

Kaushik,
A process/production order can be created without BOM also, so the answer is yes still you can create a production order.(You will get an additional status "NMAT" - No material).
If the usage is defined as Sales then that BOM will not get picked for Prodn/Proc order.
If the Item level details of the component is also defined "production relevant" with "Relavent to sales", then the BOM gets picked up. (This is defined in Status/Long txt tab page in component item level details).
Hope this helps...Reward your points if so,
Regards,
Prasobh

Help-Rule Based Subscription with the Payload using Advanced Queue in BPEL

Hi,
I am using multi-consumer queue while dequeuing the messages from the queue i am specifying a rule which determine a particular message in the queue should be routed to a particular subscriber.
But my rule is not being effective all the subscribers to the queue are pciking the same message.
Thanks
Hems

Hi Hems,
Please refer : SOA_ORACLE_HOME\\bpel\samples\tutorials\124.AQAdapter\RuleBasedSubscription_Payload sample.
Regards
A

ATP check for Sales BOM

Hi Gurus,
We have a requirement to check ATP in APO (GATP) when Sales BOM (order BOM) is used. I am looking for some inputs on how to setup this scenario and how to explode Sales bom.
I know sales bom creates sub items in sales order and Rule based-ATP cannot be used for sub items. Is there a possibility not explode BOM until ATP is completed for header item? That is, how to control explosion of BOM in sales order.
Can you someone please reply to this. It is urgent issue.. Appreciate your inputs.
Thanks,
BKN

Hi Harsha,
we can fullfill this requirment by using Material determination
In Material determination Record
normally we are maintaining for A give B instead of putting like this maintain record like this For A give A after that in additional data maintain more material like B,C etc..
And maintain availability check for every material...
then u r problem will solve..
in this item category determination is
OR NORM PREL TAX CX
OR NORM PSHP TAX TAPS PP
like this u need to maintain determination then u will get..
i hope ur problem will solve...PLZ Reward
Regards
Durga Prasad

How to transfer Sales BOM from ECC to APO DP

Hi,
Demand planning require Sales BOM from ECC. Sales BOM in ECC will not have Routing & Work center, then how a PPM with Sales BOM can be transferred. If i have to create a dummy routing & WC for those sales BOM it will be tidious job to create all the master data. Is there any way to transfer the BOM alone from ECC to APO.
Please throw some light on it.
Thanks & Regards
Shan

Hi Somnath / Ritesh,
Are you sure about ciffing Sales BOM(usage 5)to APO as PDS ? Did you test it or your comments are based on SAP documentation?
I tried to CIF Sales BOM as SNP PDS, it is creating PDS with only parent item.Child items are missing.I have not used any production version here.
If i use production BOM(usage 1), it is creating PDS with both parent and child items.I have not used any production version here also.
SAP says BOMs can be ciffed to APO as PDS. No productions versions are required. but it has not mentioned about BOM's usage. May be , Is it by default production BOM?
One more question, Is it possible to create production version with BOM usage 5? It has no meaning right..
I think system does not allow you to create production version with BOM usage 5.
I also tried with BOM usage 2. In this case also it behaves like sales BOM.
looks like only production BOM can be ciffed with proper BOM structure in APO.
if required i can send you the link to share screen shots.
Pls comment..
regards,
Umamahesh

Rules-based GATP with sales BOM

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for