Wow... I didn't think I'd find a topic that would raise my dander so quickly.  Here's a perfect example of what I hope this blog can be about.

A recent posting asked about an early warning system for notifying personnel by email about material about to be expired.  The standard report MB5M was recommended to them. This report can be used to monitor soon to be expired materials.  It was suggested that it should be part of someone's job function to run this report on a regular basis to monitor soon to be expired materials.

Another poster indicated that they had set up MB5M for a client to be run in a background job and the report mailed to the user's.  Now I have no doubt the client asked for this.  And the partner or consultant was doing as asked.  And in the end, there might have been some very valid reasons at the client for doing such a thing.  But my question would be “is this really a good thing to do?”  What are the benefits and risks of undertaking such a development?  It sounds simple enough.  It sounds like a benefit to the company.  And of course if you are a consulting firm doing the work there is always a price involved.  A good thing for the consulting firm but maybe not so good for the client.  But hey...they asked for it.

Just because a client asks for something, I don't necessarily believe we should simply accept it at face value and just give it to them. Now some clients will insist on it and that's fine.  Provided the consultant helped identify all the consequences as well as the benefits.  Do all consultants and consulting partners do this?  Talking a client out of doing a development is well, quite frankly, reducing development revenues.  I think too many consultants are too quick to want to visit their local ABAP'er.

In this case what are the potential benefits and consequences.  A lot depends on the size of the company and the number of materials being monitored.  Also the number of potential email recipients. 

Benefits:

1.  It is run regularly when it is supposed to be run. It's never missed

2.  It is run with a standard variant

3.  Many people can be kept informed

4.  If nothing is expiring people don't waste time going into SAP

5.  No training of users to run the report

Sounds good...  I’m sure I missed some and hopefully folks can add some more via comments.

Ok.. so what are the consequences?  Lets rebuttal each of the benefits first.

1.  Running regularly - This item largely depends on the number of products, the size of the company, the, number of people involved, etc... What if you set the variant up to warn when batches are 30 days from expiring and you run it once a week?  Is that a correct window for all products?  What if some products have a 3yr shelf life and others only 60 days?  Do you set the job up to run multiple variants? What about new products?  If you have products with a 30 day shelf life, do you want them flagged the day they are made?  Maybe this should be run every day for some products.

2. A standard variant - almost impossible for a large company.  You might have many products you really don't care to monitor.  Maybe you have dummy batch managed products for certain processes. Maybe you have bulk intermediates or bulk tank materials that have expiration dates but you don't need to monitor them as the bulk is just blended off into new batches when it expires and the production people monitor that.  In almost any case, you are going to have to somehow specify specific materials in the variant.  Since the selection is only by material in the standard, you have to maintain the material list in the variant.  Either one by one or by using a range of material numbers.  Or you copy the program and add additional selection choices like Material types.. Oh boy... more development!!! 

In the standard you can't limit the selection by material AND plant.  If you specify a material, and you specify a group of plants, it's active for all the plants.  Unless you create multiple variants and use multiple steps for the batch jobs. So now you need a business process to make sure all relevant variants are updated every time you create a new material master or extend a material to a new plant,

3. Many people can be informed. Ok.. yep that's true.  But only a couple of those people will actually ACT on the information.  Maybe only one person!!!  Are those other people REALLY looking at the report?  Is it really worth doing a development to send a report to 20 people when only 1 or 2 people act on the info and maybe only 1 or 2 people are actually monitoring that activity?  And who keeps up the distribution list as people come and go and change job functions?  We’ll need another business process for that!  Oh…and while it’s pretty much peanuts, don’t forget all the email storage space those reports will eat up over time. Not to mention a potential liability issue when a report is available in email showing a batch was once expired that maybe somehow got sold and shouldn’t have?

4. Wasting time to check in SAP?  Let's face it.  The people that actually work with this info are in SAP everyday anyway.  How much time are they really saving?  Let’s see, /nMB5M, pick my favorite variant of the day and click execute.  That's about all of 5 seconds.

5. No training of users to run the report - this is the biggest benefit lie I think there is that is out there.  You never benefit by not training your users.  The key people involved in this activity are going to want to be able to run the report anyway.  Cause here is what happens in real life.  They get the report in the AM when they come into work. The first thing the person that has to act on this information is going to be what?  They are going to go in and run the report anyway!!!! They won't trust the batch job report!  They'll want to see it themselves.  And they'll want the info on their screen in SAP.  So they will learn the transaction with or without your help. And then, if they need to, they can email the report to the appropriate people right from the transaction!

Ok... we all know that every plant has someone responsible for watching expiring material and monitoring blocked stock.  (You do have those people right?).   If it is their job, train them to run the report and explain variant creation, (do it well once and you never have to do it again).  Train their supervisors to run the report and other inventory reports.  They should know how to do that anyway! 

Lastly, set up a business process to perform at least quarterly reviews on every area's blocked and/or restricted stock.  This stock costs you money to keep.  If it's expired, damaged, or soon to be expired get rid of it quickly and efficiently. Don't store it for years on the off chance someone will buy it!  Wake up... it became expired for a reason.

There is a reason SAP never provided a means to set up email notifications for this process.  It's usually does not add much value to your business. 

Ok.. so I've decided to take the plunge and try to make myself blog every once in while here.  I'm not really sure how many people will really care what I have to say but I thought I'd give it a go.  After over 15 years with working with SAP software I feel that I have at least some idea of what is going on.  Of course my wife reminds me, (often), that only applies to the SAP world.

So what do I intend to write about here?  I guess I'll find out as I do this.  But I think I'd like to discuss some of the softer sides of consulting and especially in the QM world as that is pretty much my entire focus.  Now I do think I know my way around some other areas of SAP fairly well, but QM has pretty much been my niche.  Not that some technical issues might not be discussed but I don't want to concentrate on that.  That's what the SDN forums and Wiki are really for.

I like to think I'm fairly good at what I do.  I know I'm not perfect.  I've screwed up a few things here and there in projects along the way. I probably have a few companies and/or employees complaining about the system I left behind.  But that's part of what I think this blog should be about.  Putting in a system or new functionality shouldn't be just be about flipping config switches and creating some user exits. Especially with regard to Quality Management. 

It's not just about making the client happy.  Sometimes you do have to make the client unhappy.  SAP has tried to put in place certain best practices into the system. Now everyone can argue over the details of exactly what is a best practice but we all know there are certain things you should and shouldn't be doing.  I find many of the questions posted in the QM forum relate to how to not do certain things.  How to avoid certain things.

Clients often want the system designed to work a certain way.  Except for when that one particular customer calls up.  Or that one batch is JUST a tad off at 3:00 AM and the truck is waiting to load and they just KNOW the customer won't really care.  That's not the way it works folks if you want to ensure top quality.

So I hope those can be some of the issues I can blog about and we'll see where it goes from here.  Because quality consulting for the QM module shouldn't just be about knowing what switches to flip.

FF

Dear All,

Wish you all a very happy new year-2012... :-)

I faced a strange issue during SAP implementation project for one of the leading fire protection devices industry in USA. Such situation could occur in any industry which has materials management processes along with Quality Management.

In our case, in Material Management, business has activated a Revision Level for products to track the changes with materials and related documents, and hence there were multiple revision levels created in for a particular material in SAP. Also in QM, business had a specific process of an external vendor certificate requirement, in which vendor has to provide quality certificate along with goods. In such scenario, a Quality Information (Q-Info) Record must be created for a material/goods and as a normal practice, we created a Q-Info Record for a particular Material, Plant & Vendor combination.

Considering above, in purchasing process, while creating a Purchasing documents e.g. Purchase Order (PO) for a particular product, which has multiple revision levels maintained and a certificate requirement, system tried to fetch a current/Active revision level. But Active version would be RESET by system, as no Q-Info Record is maintained for active revision level. This is because system tries to verify if vendor being used in purchasing document is released by QM team for procurement.

Due to Revision Level RESET in purchasing document, system wouldn’t populate a current/Active Revision Level and hence could not link the correct document/data related to product/s into PO. This was creating problems...

First option which came into mind to overcome this situation was to create Q-Info Record for each Material, Plant, Vendor & Reviosion Level combination so that system would find correct record for a particular revision level. But this would have been created more questions/concerns from business... considering amount extra master records (Q-Info Records) to created in SAP along with business efforts involved into it.

And then I came across a more suitable and one-time solution to overcome this situation... to implement a BAdI- QB_Q_INFO_RECORD in SAP system.

Using this BAdI implementation, we can force SAP to skip/clear a revision level for a material in a particular business transaction in which it accesses the Q-Info Record, either in read/write mode. Because in a normal case business would not have Q-Info Record created for each material revision.

In this BAdI, system refers to different combinations of the Q-Info Records with reference fields-Material, Plant, Revision Level & Vendor, even though a single Q-info record is maintained in SAP. With this solution, we avoided creation of multiple Q-Info Records for each Revision Level alongwith business efforts to create it everytime.

Off-course, this solution was commended by business people as it was a better solution than to create multiple Q-Info Records in SAP for each revision level. After this I did not tried to search/look for any other solution to this. :-)

The idea for this blog came from a comment thread on one of my other blogs.  Michelle Crapo was kind enought to comment and it led me to a thought I've had before.  I'm sure others have discussed this topic probably before at times.  And for some old-timers here this is old news.  But hey... it's my blog.

It's amazing the differences between the cultures of countries and companies.  I have done projects with major pharmaceutical firms as well as low cost chemical companies and other general manufacturers.  Several of my projects have also been international in scope working with different cultures.  Italy, Spain, France, UK, Canada, Australia to name a few.  Sorry to say I haven't had any Asian exposure yet. 

Now I'm going to stereotype here.   So don't beat me up too bad on this.  There are always the exceptions that make the rule and I acknowledge that.

For many of my American brethren, the switch to SAP is somewhat of a culture shock.  I think our European associates "get it" much better.  Every SAP project I've been on, we try to hammer into them that bad master data is the number one cause of failures in new SAP projects, (at least from where I sit in QM).  Bad data is where 80% of your go-live headaches and pain will usually be traced back to. 

We (Americans) have a habit, (I'm not saying its a bad habit or a good habit), of just wanting to resolve the problem.  Let's just get it done and resolve the problem.  Execute. Execute. Execute.  Go. Go. Go.  I always tell them that SAP is different than any other system.  It expects a huge investment in planning. (no, I'm not talking about MRP) and preparation.  Mainly, I think this is due to the huge amount of built in integration between modules in SAP.  This of course is what drives so many of the major benefits.  You don’t really see that integration when your business runs on 30-50 different applications all from different vendors.  But it is there, it takes the form of emails, phone calls, checking spreadsheets, disbursing reports in snail mail or email, shared files on file servers, master lists, SOP’s, job aids, etc…  After all, you are still doing the work to run your business!

I tell them that most people and companies spend 10% planning and 90% executing.  But SAP expects something like 80% planning and 20% execution.  (Please don't take those numbers as literal and having any scientific backing. They don't).  This is not unlike our personal lives where any time management course tells you to plan your day.  And we counter that we don't have the time to plan.  We say that those 30 minutes a day of planning is wasted time.  Deep down we all know that to be untrue.

SAP is very much like those time management courses.  Fail to plan and you can plan to fail. 

Expecting to use SAP and not planning to commit additional resources to post go-live master data maintenance, upkeep, review and creation is a sure way to make your future in SAP an unhappy experience.  Getting these master data processes correct in the design phases is almost as important, if not more so, than getting the initial master data load correct.  You will get your master data load correct eventually, even if it is 6 months, (maybe 2-3 yrs later!!), after you have loaded it. The system dictates it.  (I know we've all been there and done that!)

But bad master data creation processes ensure that the corrections will never end.  The irony is that in reality you are doing these master data creation processes now in whatever combination of those 30-50 systems that are currently being used.  It's just that you usually have the job of dealing with that data spread out across the 30-50 application specialists that deal with those various apps daily.  And the multiple handoffs, emails, phone calls and errors are all there.  It's just that there is no true visibility of those activities and no way to actually quantify them.  Those 30-40 people may only spend 5-10% of their day dealing with those issues.  But 40 people * 10% of their day = 4 FTE's.

But suddenly with SAP, you have a need to concentrate those responsibilities into one or more specific FTE's.  You didn't really see them before... but they were there.  But now, you see them as an FTE's, (or partial FTE’s), required to support SAP. And that causes management issues to establish these new roles and jobs and often times push back on projects.

But be assured. Eventually you WILL have these people.  Even if you choose to not formally recognize them the system will dictate that someone does the functions required. Make sure you plan these post-go live positions early in your design phase and not as a last minute after-thoughts a month before go-live when you are doling out the security roles.  I don’t think I have ever seen a task or project item in a project plan or methodology called “Design and map post go-live master data creation/maintenance support”.   Yet evey module should have this as a task early in the design.

Unfortunately many consulting companies and consultants do a bad job of pointing this out to clients.  After all, they are out of there once the system is up and running.  Clients too often, (still after all these years!!!) are still identifying and training these people and setting up these processes during the initial couple of weeks of go-live.

FF

This blog came about because of a question in a forum.  I get very frustrated when I see this question asked.  It keeps coming up regularly.  I can summarize my response in one sentence and anyone familiar with this topic will probably know the question:

Answer:   DO NOT make a copy of the COA program RQCAAP00 and customize it and then assign it to your COA output types.

Question:  Transactions QC21 and QC22 don't work or don't create COA's like the ones from my COA outputs in my deliveries.  How come?

I have seen client after client do this.  I don’t know why.  They all seem to think they have a unique requirement that can’t be met any other way.  Or, the more likely reason is that they have someone doing their consulting that is less then knowledgable about the COA programs, the available functionality and the ramifications of changing this program.

For most chemical companies, providing Certificates of Analysis (COA’s) is a primary requirement of any SAP installation that implements the QM module.  Some choose to use external systems such as their LIMS or maybe a custom solution.  But many choose to use SAP, which can do this and which can integrate very nicely with the SD module.  This is a key reason to do this function in SAP since most external solutions require some type of manual step or communication.

Typically we configure the system such that a COA output type is created automatically in deliveries for certain materials and/or customers.  The output is then either automatically processed at some point or is manually requested by someone by a transaction like VL71 or QC20.  The program ultimately sitting behind this functionality is usually RQCAAP00.  

In configuration, SAP has a section where the program for the output can be defined.  Under QM config the config path is Quality Certificates-->Process Output-->Assign Print Program to Output Type/Medium.  When this is executed, you have to provide an output type such as LQCA.  You can then assign a print processing program to each output medium such as print output, fax output, EDI, etc…  A key thing to keep in mind is that this same config process is used in other modules to assign print programs to their modules output types.  The technique is used across several different modules.

So, people are used to editing and modifying their print programs as they see fit.  They can change the BOL or Pick List this way and do all kinds of fancy things with regards to collecting data and how the data is presented.  And guess what?  It works for COA’s too!!!!  Wow!  But just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you SHOULD.  Why does SAP let us do this for COA’s? 

Well, it could be you have a special type of EDI format that is required by a specific industry.  You can copy the standard program, make your changes to the output format and configure it as an output medium for one or more output types.  This is a valid reason.   But the key here is that the program should only be changed to accommodate the medium type, i.e. EDI.  Not to change the underlying functionality of the program.  Once you make that Z program for that medium, you, as the client are responsible for maintaining it, updating it with each SAP revision and adding in any new logic that you want to incorporate. 

Now, as far as the standard COA program, RQCAAP00, you could copy that to a Z program, modify it to meet some requirement and assign that to your print and fax mediums for your outputs. No problem.  The COA’s come out and everyone is happy.  For awhile.

But one day you try to use the QC21 or QC22 transactions to manually create a COA for some reason. (Trust me, it will happen).  Each of these transactions use their own programs, RQCAAP01 and RQCAAP02 respectively. The program for transaction QC20 is RQCAAP03 which utilizes the output type configuration and as a result will call any custom program you have configured. It is no different than running VL71 really.

SAP has set up RQCAAP01 and RQCAAP02 to basically always call the original COA program RQCAAP00 and the submodules.  Since you can't modify RQCAAP01 and RQCAAP02 to use your custom program, you cannot use QC21 or QC22 as they won't have the same functionality/logic as your Z COA program you assigned to your output types.  Your COA's won't come out correctly, if at all.

SAP never really intended for you to change the underlying COA program. The ability to assign COA output programs to output types was primarily allowed to create programs for special output mediums like EDI and any future output types maybe not envisioned. 

Mods to your COA should be done via standard SAP functionality such as the function modules that can be written and configured, user exits, and SAPscript.

Here’s another issue you will run into if you have not already.

Once you modify the program, whatever version you use as your base program to start from, is the version of SAP you are stuck with. So if you modified a 4.6c version of RQCAAP00 program, as SAP rolls out new versions, such as in 6.0 or 6.0 EHP, your custom program cannot take advantage of any new functionality that SAP provides. SAP can and does make changes to RQCAAP00 and it’s sub modules to accommodate new functionality or make bug fixes.  It is conceivable that at some point, if SAP makes a major change to the COA functionality, you might find your custom Z COA program no longer functions some day after an upgrade or hot patch.

An excellent example of this is the use of multiple specifications in QM. A company who for instance modified their COA program in version 4.0 are stuck with the 4.0 version. When upgraded to 6.0, their program might still run fine.  But they cannot use the new multiple specifications functionality as they cannot output COA's for it because their custom COA program, built on 4.0, has no logic in it for multiple specs. So they must rewrite their custom program, or use it as is.  This means that no business in their company can consider using multiple specifications as a possible business option.

Some places make "Z" versions of QC21 and QC22. They have to copy the RQCAAP01 and RQCAAP02 programs and put in the same logic they put in the custom copy of RQCAAP00. Then they create ZQC21 and ZQC22 transactions. Of course you now have to maintain three programs with any changes and updates.

No QM consultant should ever recommend a change to the basic COA program normally. It often appears to be the easiest solution but this is usually because not enough is known about the various config options available, user exits and SAPscript. I have only seen one client in over 15 years that absolutely had to change the COA program. And for them a special output type was set up for just that business and only their output types were set up with the custom program.  And that wasn't technically a chemcial firm but a mill products company.

If there is interest in this topic, I was thinking of writing a blog about common COA issues and how these can be addressed without modifying the standard COA program.  Usually through a combination of some business process review, education, careful examination of requirements and use of standard SAP functionality, the need to make modifications to the underlying COA program can be avoided allowing for easier upgrades and the ability to incorporate future functionality.

Iin one of my previus projects one of the requirement was to add multiple serial numbers to a qulaity notification. After going through many of the option we came across the assigned object functionality in quality notification which really resolved our issue.

Using this functionality the user can assign multiple objects to a quality notification at item level. This enables you to document a single defect for multiple batches or serial nos in place of creating multiple quality notifications. It also reduces the amount of processing required, and reduces the number of notifications.

The following are object categories provided in the standard system:

1.    Batch.

2.    Serial No.

3.    Inspection Lot.

4.    Delivery Item.

5.    Order no (Production or process)

To be able to use this content for the SAP version should be ECC 6.0 and enhancement pack 4(EHP4). Instead of going for ABAP development  the following config can be done to have this functionality

Step - 1

IMG path - IMG / Logistics Execution / Quality Management/ Quality Notifications / Notification types/Define screen templates

Select the Notification type and after defining the Header screen and the simplified view screen. Add Tab 20\TAB05in the extended view.

For adding these details in the reference screen (Optional)  add Screen area 840 in the simplified view.

Step - 2

IMG path - IMG / Logistics Execution / Quality Management/ Quality Notifications / Notification Processing/ Assigned objects/ Define Object Categories

We can define the following object categories As per the business scenario.

Step - 3

IMG path - IMG / Logistics Execution / Quality Management/ Quality Notifications / Notification Processing/ Assigned objects/ Business Add-In for Implementing an Object Category

Make sure that the following BADI’s (Depending open the objects selected) are activated.

Step - 4

IMG path - IMG / Logistics Execution / Quality Management/ Quality Notifications / Notification Processing/ Assigned objects/ Assign Object Categories for a Notification Type

Select the notification type where the assigned objects need to be activated

Click on the assignment to object catagory

Maintain all the required object catagory to the notification type

To check the functionality

Create one notification and under item tab the assigned object tab ll be available.

After filling the material detail in reference tab go to Item tab. Select the defect code for the item

Go to the Assign object tab and enter the object type and the details.

We can also enter ranges or generic values for the assigned objects.

·When you enter a range (such as 1 - 5), the system adopts all batches and/or serial numbers where the key is between 1 and 5 as assigned objects in the notification item.

When you enter a range (such as 5*), the system adopts all batches and/or serial numbers where the key is starts with 5 as assigned objects in the notification item.

To get the detailed report QM19 can be used

The assigned objects function is also added in the Notification list (multi level).

Regards,

Smruti

I feel there is a dearth of discussion on the SAP Quality management functions and processes which are prevalent in the Oil and Gas Industry. During an implementation in the industry I had to face some scenarios which I would like to talk about.

The first case I would like to talk about is the usage decision scenario. A fairly simple one but since this involves the Oil and Gas Industry (Downstream) - Hydrocarbon product management – QCI (Quantity conversion interface).Whenever a UD is about to made and the stock is to be sent to either Un-restricted or blocked, it requires the QCI value to be entered; this is the normal scenario when operating in the foreground but if one need to process in the background then the BAPI provided by SAP- BAPI_INSPLOT_SETUSAGEDECISION does not fulfill the requirement.

Simply because it has no parameters for oil; this is a similar case to the goods movement BAPI; for which there is an alternate BAPI FOR Oil.  Even if you run the BAPI in the background and allow it to make the stock posting automatically, the system will ask for the QCI parameters. There is no current setting within it to provide the aforementioned parameters. Will an alternative BAPI be provided by SAP to cater for this requirement in the future?

Another scenario was related to a storage location. If we were to talk about a single location or a petrol tank; we would test the quality of the product on the entire tank. Why? When liquids mix, they can create further changes in the composition of the entire stock present in that tank/location.

Therefore, one must conduct a test on the entire available stock to verify that the quality indeed meets the pre-set requirements. For this procedure, there is no way to manipulate the existing un-restricted stock within a storage location. To cater for this requirement, one needs to make a further action to move all the existing stock into quality. This inherently is done by triggering another goods movement, thus another quality inspection and thus the need to create a link between the original stock movements with the movement done for the remaining tank. Therein the need to look at the QCI values comes again at this point

There is the third scenario of actually inventory posting but that is correctly handled by SAP through MI10; whenever there is a posting of actual stock for correcting the actual quantity; it makes an adjustment to the quality stock held by an inspection lot. These are just some of the discussions which I wanted to talk about; ASUG held a joint SAP QM improvement suggestion at the end of March. There are other consortiums & seminars which handle process improvements to the current set of functionalities. I believe someone would have already made the suggestions mentioned above but I wanted to highlight it to the community 

Some time ago, I posted about some quality management processes in the Oil & Gas industry; In this blog,I want to mention the work-around which is possible for BAPI_INSPLOT_SETUSAGEDECISION. The problem with this BAPI is that when this BAPI is called for an inspection lot, it requests the user to input the QCI parameters. SAP has not provided the importing parameters for these QCI parameters. Now how to cater for this process is what this blog is about.

The work around for this process is to create a wrapper class/program around the BAPI call. The BAPI call will exist within a program itself. This program will call the BAPI normally with the usual parameters; This includes the selected-set configured for a plant ( Code group, Selected set, UD Code, Force_completion ), the usage decision ( approval or rejection )  and the inspection lot. Once the BAPI call is made within this program , the QCI values are prompted up in a dialog box.

The wrapper program should generate a BDC session in the background for this BAPI call program and thus, pass on the values of the qCI parameters within the BDC. This solution can be adapted to the various options which may be linked in the follow-up notifications (QS51) -if there are any further dialog boxes which may occur. Further validations can be placed in the program to allow or disallow the BDC call ( in case of materials with no QCI parameters). This functionality is inherent to oil& gas but can be adapted to other industries as well.

It is expected that SAP will create a new BAPI for the posting of the usage decision for Oil and Gas sooner or later but until than, this solution will fulfill the requirement.

Now regarding the consideration of stock as a whole in a particular tank. Once stock has been received and mixed with the existing stock, certain quality parameters might change. For this reason, the entire stock is considered to be under a quality-check. In order to accomplish this functionality; a combination of standard functionality and ABAP was used. Once a stock movement has been completed through SAP TD; (regardless of pipe-truck-ship variations- O4H1). there can be a material movement made in the background using the Oil Bapi for goods movement. QCI values are taken at standard value sets for that time; other consultants might argue that these values should be taken from the receiving goods movement document;  Our reasoning for using the standard values set in the system is that there will be no variation in the quantity values once the stock has settled/mixed. 

The goods movement will trigger the quality inspection itself; further work has to be done using ABAP shared objects to transfer linked information into the secondary inspection lot. Physical inventory which would be an activity later on would record either gains or losses for the total quantity. In the case of loss, the stock in QI would be adjusted during inventory count whereas in the case of gain, an additional inspection lot (type 5) would be triggered.

On completion of the process; approval or rejection of the primary inspection lot; the additional lot created would have the same value set as well. There would be only one inspection lot at one time for the receiving location.

This highlights just one possible way to tackle the business scenarios which could arise. I would appreciate it if others could share their experiences as well.

ISSUE

Recently I had the issue that a material has been wrongly assigned to an inspection plan in a test system. If you remove the assignment in QP02 via the delete button, the system only sets a deletion indicator in table MAPL on this assignment. Hence the material assignment is still blocking actions like "change of unit of measure". After digging a bit in the internet I found an SAP report for this, which I like to share also here on SCN.

STANDARD SOLUTION

The correct way to get rid of the assignment is to archive the complete inspection plan (I have not found a way so far to just archive a material-task list assignment).

WORKAROUND

Beside using transaction QSR6 (which deletes the complete inspection plan from the database without archiving), there is an SAP report that just deletes material assignments from the database: RCPMAPL1

With entering the task list type (e.g. Q) and the group ID, the report displays all assignments. The ones that should be removed can be marked and deleted. It is advisable to first remove the assignment with QP02, as then the deletion indicator will be visible in the report. This ensures that you tick the right assignment...

WARNING

As always with these kind of actions: be aware that you bypass most SAP security concepts (like dependency/integrity checks,...) with this action! You will most likely need a special approval from (IT) Managment and you normally have to record these actions and document them so that an auditor will understand why this had to be done.

Regards

MH

I had hoped to blog on a regular basis as well as contribute to the discussions.  But I am just so discouraged with the performance of SCN on the platforms I have available, that I just can't justify it any longer.

I admit I am working on an older IE explorer browser and evidently it is just not capable of working well with the new SCN.  I don't have control of the desktop I'm working on.  That is controlled by my client.  I am not hauling around a second laptop just to access SCN.  I primarily use an I-Pad for most other things and personal use.  I am rarely on my home desktop.  I am sure that most of the road warriors can understand that. 

The performance on the I-Pad is terrible on the cellular network and only slightly better when on a wireless network.  Especially when working on "guest" wireless or a publicily available network at a coffee shop, hotel, fast food network.  The public networks are always marginal and never as good as mine at home.

I find I can browse fairly somewhat OK when I browse as a guest.  But to log in and go back and answer discussions is extremely time consuming.  Just to read, review and answer 7-8 discussions can easily take me 40-60 minutes. 

So while you might see me here once in awhlle, I just can't spend the time on SCN that I have in the past.  It doesn't really pay the bills!!!

I would love to be a daily contributor in QM.  Sujit, Anand and a handful of others do a great job and hopefully they can continue to contribute.  Maybe once some of my clients update their browsers, or the performance suddenly improves for my I-Pad, I'll be back on a regular basis.  In the meantime, I'll probably be lurking around the corner. 

Feel free to send me a PM.  Just be aware it might take me awhile to respond.  If you have specific ideas of a blog you would like to see, let me know.  I can maybe write those in Word and than later on copy and paste it in so I might be able to do that once in awhile.

Good Luck!

FF

PS>. Please.. If you have similar performance issues please "Like" this blog. 

T. Code         Description

Quality Planning:

Inspection Planning:

CC04            Display Product Structure

QP05            Print Task Lists (General)

QP08            Print Task Lists for Material

QP06            Missing or Unusable Task Lists (General)

QP07            Missing or Unusable Inspection Plans in Procurement

CA90            Where-Used List for Reference Operation Set

QP60            Display Task List Changes

Basic Data:

QS28            Inspection Characteristic List

QS26            Where-Used List for Master Inspection Characteristic

QS38            Inspection Method List

QS36            Where-Used List for Inspection Method

QS36            Where-Used List for Inspection Method

CA80            Where-Used List for Work Center

CA70             Production Resources/Tools: Where-Used List

QS49            Code Groups and Codes

QS59            Selected Sets

QDB3            Assign Sampling Procedures to Dynamic Modification Rules

Logistic Master Data:

Material:

QK02            QM Orders

QA08             Inspection Setup

Batch:

MB56             Display Usage

MB5M            Expiration Date List

COEBR        Batch Record

Procurement:

QI05             QM Control Key

QI06             QM Info Record

QV04           Quality Assurance Agreement

QV14           Technical Delivery Terms

Sales and Distribution:

QV24           Quality Assurance Agreement

QV34           Technical Delivery Terms

Quality Inspection:

Inspection Lot:

Key Figures For Material:

MCXA           Overview of Lots

MCXC           Overview of Quantities

MCXE           Quality Scores

MCXG           Lot Numbers

MCXI             Quantities

MCXK           Work

MCXM           Location/Dispersion

Key Figures For Vendor:

MCVA           Overview of Lots

MCVC          Overview of Quantities

MCVE          Quality Scores

MCVG          Lot Numbers

MCVI           Quantities

MCVK          Work

MCVM          Location/Dispersion

Key Figures For Customer: 

MCOA           Overview of Lots

MCOC           Overview of Quantities

MCOE           Quality Scores

MCOG           Lot Numbers

MCOI             Quantities

MCOK           Work

MCOM           Location/Dispersion

QA33             List (Inspection Lot Selection)

QGA1            Time Line for Quality Scores

Job Overview:

QA06            Deadline Monitoring of Batches

QA52            Source Inspection

QA18            Automatic Usage Decision - General

QA42            Automatic Usage Decision - Orders

QD35           Delete Quality Levels

Inspection Result:

Key Figures for Material:

MCXB          General

MCXD          Quantitative

Key Figures for Vendor:

MCVB          General

MCVD          Quantitative

Key Figures for Customer:

MCOB          General

MCOD          Quantitative

QGP1           History for Inspection Characteristic

QGA2           Display

QGA3           Print

Defects:

MCXX         Key Figures for Material

MCVX         Key Figures for Vendor

MCOX        Key Figures for Customer

Quality Level:

QDH2         History

QD35        Jobs for Deleting Quality Level

Control Chart:

QGC1        For Inspection Lots

QGC2        For Inspection Characteristic

QGC3        For Master Inspection Characteristic

Digital signature:

CJ00         Find

DSAL        Logs

Quality Certificates :

QC55        Certificate Receipt Worklist

QC20        Certificates for Deliveries

QC31        Archive Display of Certificate for Delivery Item

QC32        Archive Display of Certificate for Inspection Lot

Quality Notification:

Notification:

MCXV        Key figures for material

MCVZ         Key figures for vendor

MCOV        Key figures for customer

QM11         List

QM19        Multi-level list

QM50        Time series analysis

Item:

MCXP         Key figures for material

MCVP         Key figures for vendor

MCOP        Key figures for customer

QM15         List

QM13        List of tasks

Quality control:

QGA4        General QM Evaluations

Test Equipment Management:

Equipment:

IH08           Display Data

IE07           Equipment List (Multilevel)

QGP2        Calibration Results History

QGD1        Usage History

QGD2       Tracking

Maintenance:

IP16           Display Data

IP14           Where-Used List

IP24           Scheduling List

IP19           Scheduling List as Gantt Diagram

IW40          Order List (Multilevel)

Calibration Inspection:

QS26          Where-Used List for Inspection Characteristic

QS36          Where-Used List for Inspection Method

QS36          Where-Used List for Inspection Method

QA18          Jobs for Automatic Usage Decision

Ok.. vent day!  I got frustrated today with the lack of response from original posters (OP) regarding their questions.

So I decided that I'd do a bit of research. 

The folks who use the QM space here are very fortunate to have several people that respond to questions here.  There are a good half-dozen or more consultants here that regularly  take the time to respond to questions.  Very few questions go without a  reply or answer and most are replied to within a 24 hr period.

NONE of us are SAP employees.  We do this primarily because we get value from researching questions, learning about new user requirements,  gaining tricks of the trade, and learning about business processes that we might not run across, etc.. etc..   Trust me, the points mean nothing.  You don't spend the time here because of points.  You spend the time here because you enjoy it, you like your vocation, and want to learn more as well as help others.

But what I'm seeing is that many of the OP's never respond back and don't close out their questions.  So it got me to wondering.  Are our QM folks the rudest folks around in SCN?  Or is it the same way in all the various spaces.  So I figured I'd do a bit of analytics.  I'm not going to get too extensive as I would think SAP already has these numbers.  It would be great if they would publish some stats in each space on the main page of the space..  like a monthly summary of the percentage of questions closed.  Kind of like a closure rate that most help desks use.  Anyway, that's an item for the idea space.

Even those people that close their discussions often never provide feedback on what worked.  They mark everyone's reply as helpful and never tell us what they actually decided to do.  Did they get the client to abandon the request?  Did they change a business practice?  Did they find another technical solution not proposed by the respondents?  That's part of the reason I answer questions.  I want to know the final answer!

So I reviewed a few spaces and of the ones I looked at, I'd have to say that QM does has the lowest closure rate.  So maybe we are the rudest of the bunch if closure rate could be considered a measure of rudeness in a technical forum.  Or maybe we just don't have the expertise here yet to give satisfactory answers?

Maybe at some point SAP will publish a more comprehensive list than mine below.  I'm sure they have it.  (Laure Cetin? )

So here is what I found:

Yes. of the 4 spaces I looked at, mostly for July and August, QM has the lowest closure rate at just an average of 15.25%.  It would be even lower if I just used July and August like I did for two of the other spaces.

The PLM space wasn't far ahead of QM.  But QM was still the lowest.

The ABAP'ers had the highest of the four spaces I looked at with a 27.35% closure rate.

I hope that OP's will look more at being courteous and doing what is the right thing.  YOU asked the question.  We gave you replies and usually valuable advice that might not normally be available anywhere else without paying significant money for a consultant to visit your site.  The very least you can do is reply to our questions, make a closing reply that explains the final outcome and at least say thanks.

Maybe some OP's can comment on why they don't take the time to respond or to close out their questions.  Hopefully I'm not the only one here that gets frustrated with this behavior.  I'd like to hear from others that feel the same way.  Or maybe I'm the only one?

Additional note:  The numbers above are constantly changing.  They must be considered as only a snapshot on the day I reviewed the areas and posted the blog. 

QM/Characteristics/Specifications/Classification – Blog 1.

This is the first blog of a series of blogs and documents I intend to write and post.  The series of postings will attempt to explain the relationships and issues with how specifications are kept in SAP and in particular how batch management is impacted.  Or probably more accurately how batch management affects QM.

I’ll not only include the technical process around this subject, but I’ll try to provide some functional information around these processes.  The how’s, the why’s, the pitfalls, the benefits, the pros, the cons, etc…  I’ll also try to provide some real world examples of how certain techniques can be used.

I also hope that other QM experts here will chime in with their own comments.  I will take all comments constructively and will make every attempt to correct or update the blog/document where necessary.  For those experienced QM folks, please have patience with these blogs.  A lot of these blogs and documents will be old stuff to you.

But hopefully you can comment and add to what is presented. 

So, to begin this series, I think some background knowledge should be covered.  One of the first things that I think is crucial to understanding these QM processes is understanding the relationship between Master Inspection Characteristics (MIC’s) and General Characteristics, (GC's), You may find SAP documentation as well as consultants or clients referring to general characteristics as batch characteristics, or class characteristics.  In this series of blogs and documents I will use the term general characteristics.

The first key concept to understand is that MIC’s are only known to the QM module in SAP.  General characteristics are used by all other areas of SAP.  With only a handful of exceptions, QM does not really know about GC's. Why is this?  To be honest, I don’t know 100% for sure but I’ll give you my thoughts on this.  Maybe a true SAP historian can comment and let me know if I’m right or not.

In any case, the QM module pre-dated the classification system. I believe classification was introduced back in 3.1, I think with the 3.1F version.   I’m going to guess that classification was developed by an SAP customer/third party firm and then bought out by SAP and added to SAP. That’s a total guess however.  In any case, you have to remember that SAP was at the time, a business system.  It wasn’t designed as a full blown LIMS.   It was to provide the basic laboratory functions to support the business.  The QM module wasn’t really meant to do much outside of collect final product test results, provide a certain amount of in-process testing and control, and allow a formal way to release product and print test results on a certificate to support the required SD documents.  It's grown a lot since then!  There was no batch management and quality and testing was mostly plant centric.  So MIC’s were plant centric data.

With the release of batch management and classification, there came a need to get QM test data into the batch record.  Batches were designed to use general characteristics, and since by definition, batches can only have one current test value for any given test, they had to figure a way to get QM and Classification to integrate somehow.

I am sure there were a ton of design meetings and I’m sure many things were considered.  But for better or worse, the infamous linkage between MIC’s and GC's was created.  A field (ATINN) was appended to the QPMK table and the marriage was made.

Now since GC's are really client level data, and MIC’s are plant level data, this now impacts the QM design.  Since only one MIC can be assigned to one GC this can cause some problems.  If you have a MIC, say VIS003 in plant 1000 and VIS003 in plant 1001, you cannot assign them to the same general characteristic VISCOSITY. 

Typically, (BTW: for future reference that’s my way of saying that nothing is absolute, and somewhere, there is probably a valid exception but you really, really want to avoid the exception), you do not want to create multiple general characteristics to match up with multiple MIC’s across multiple plants.  If you think you have this need, go back and think it through carefully.  Think about how batches work, the batch level you use, the transfer of material between plants, to distribution centers, to consignment stock, how the production chain works, producing certificates, using batch determination, batch derivation, copy inspection results, etc…  You’ll hopefully see that it would be a bad idea.

Fortunately, SAP allows us to share MIC’s across our inspection plans and tasks lists.  Doing this does allow us to  minimize the number of MIC’s required.

So, define a master data plant.  Even if you’re on a small project and only have one plant, make sure you design from the start as if you have more than one plant.  Define the one plant as your master data plant up front.  Have it recognized as part of your design documents as the master data plant right from the start.  You might even suggest creating a virtual plant just for master data. Other modules often can find a master data plant valuable. 

If you are in what I call a silo’ed business, whether for practical reasons, (GMP reason),  or political reasons, (I don’t want people seeing my data), a virtual plant allows you to provide appropriate users access to the virtual plant, without giving them access to another plants data.  If you have two or more very disparate businesses working in the same SAP client, you might need to have two or more master data plants.

In lieu of having a specific virtual master data plant you might consider using a “plant” that was only set up to be used as a corporate location or sales location.

In any case, hopefully now, your design has all the MIC’s created in one master data plant, and each MIC will be linked to one and only one general characteristic.  This is important as I will be basing the remaining blogs on this concept.  At appropriate places I will try to point out what issues would happen if you used a multiple mic’s across multiple plants design.

Ok… this is probably a good stopping place.  The next blog of the series will discuss the impact of linking MIC’s with general characteristics and some of the more technical issues associated with the linkage. It will serve as a basis of how specifications are maintained.

Next Blog:  http://scn.sap.com/community/erp/operations-qm/blog/2013/10/03/qmcharacteristicsspecificationsclassification-blog-2

A continuation of a series of blogs:

Blog 1: http://scn.sap.com/community/erp/operations-qm/blog/2013/09/23/qmcharacteristicsspecificationsclassification-blog-1

QM/Characteristics/Specifications/Classification – Blog 2

GC’s and MIC’s

Ok.. lets talk about this linkage thing.  How does this work and what does it mean.  First off, lets understand the main reason this is done.  We already discussed how we have two different areas of SAP that kind of grew up separately and now need to talk to each other. But in order for that communication to happen, there has to be a common language.  With regard to the characteristics this primarily means the following three items have to be compatible:

• - Data type (char or numeric)
• - Unit of measure, (UOM),
• - Decimal places

This ensures that the values transferred from the MIC are not truncated, misrepresented or other wise corrupted.

There are basically only two combinations  of characteristics that can actually be linked.

• - A GC of Char data type that uses catalogs as the values, can be linked with a qualitative MIC
• - A GC of numeric data type can be linked with a quantitative MIC.

You can not use GC’s with a date, time or currency data type.

You can not use GC’s that are set up for multiple values.

You can not use MIC’s with the “classed recording” control indicator clicked on.

You can not use MIC’s that only allow defects recording.

Those are the general rules.  Depending on how you use some MIC’s and what control indicators you select, you may run into trouble with trying to link them to a GC.   If you try to change control indicators on a linked MIC, you will get a pop-up box like the one below.  PLEASE click the help icon in the information box.  The help there will explain some of the reasons certain control indicators can’t be changed.

Now… before we actually create and link any characteristics, from a consulting point of view we need a rationale as to exactly what is going to constitute a test.  There is no hard and fast rule for this.  I’d like to think there is, but the client is always correct.

What I try to push as a standard is that if any of the following items are not the same, it should be new GC/MIC. 

1. Basic test method
2. UOM
3. Number of Decimal places (Sensitivity)

So lets take an example. A simple Assay.  A common test in many companies.  We can have the following IF there is only one way to run the test:

Depending on HOW the assay is run we could have multiple assays.  For instance, FE can also me determined by Mass spec and by GC-MS. 

If there are other testing techniques, then the list of characteristics would be expanded as appropriate.  

Consulting Note 1: Determine your list of general characteristics first, before attempting to develop your MIC’s.  It is much easier to create your MIC’s with a reference to the GC then it is to establish this link later on.  Even if you don’t plan to use all your characteristics as GC’s or batch characteristics, plan and develop your test list as if everything will be a batch characteristic. 

The holy grail is a single list of tests utilized across the entire enterprise with no duplications.  Plants and products are not to get their own unique tests because they think they are ‘unique’ or are different.   Remember, different method names and even different preparation methods are allowed in different plants.  The key would be to determine if customers, or an outside regulatory agency, would, on an analytical basis, accept the test values as interchangeable.  If they would, they are the same test.  If not, they are different tests.

You might have some tests that you expect to only set up as MIC’s because they can’t be linked to a GC.  That’s fine, but go through the same exercise for all your tests and pretend as if they will all be linked to GC’s.  Once your master list is established, you just identify these as not needing GC’s.  But your descriptions, decimal points, UOM’s etc. will still all be needed to set up the MIC. 

Conversely, you might have GC’s that won’t need MIC’s.

There is no real hard and fast rule..  But you want to attempt to avoid duplication of what is basically the same test.  This is simply a guideline and based on my past experience.

Consulting Note 2: Some UOM’s are directly convertible.    For instance, %, PPM, PPB and PPT can all be converted by SAP. Laboratories across the enterprise should standardize on what UOM they wish to record against in the laboratory and internally as a business for a given test.  If the data needs to be reported in different UOM’s, this can be done directly in the COA profile.  I.e. you record in % but report to certain customers in PPM’s.  If you do this, you may also need to consider a custom text description for the characteristic within the COA profile. You are installing a computer system, maximize it's usage!

Consulting Note 3:  Some tests can easily be calculated from others.  A good example are tests in the chemical industry called “Screens”. These tests are primarily for evaluating particle sizes.  It involves using a screen(s) to pass material thru.  The amount of material left on the screen is an “ON” test while what falls through the screen is a “THRU” value.  A product may be passed thru three or more screens.  A THRU value can be calculated as 100% minus the ON %.  And of course the ON % can be calculated as 100% minus the THRU % value.  Some customers want the “ON” value reported to them on the COA, while others want the “THRU” value reported.  Don't make your lab techs record virtually the same test value multiple times in an inspection lot!!!

Plan to set up the system so that all laboratory personnel record one or the other.   In the above example get the technicians in the lab trained to do all THRU measurements.  Then all the “ON” tests are placed as calculated characteristics at the end of the inspection lot.  Don’t make them record both because some customers want the ON value while others want the THRU value.  And don't have them record two THRU values and one ON value.   Pick one or the other for the techs to record.   All of course will all need to be set up as GC’s and MIC’s.  These are just a few examples.  I know there are other series of tests like this.

The idea is to get the labs to be consistent so that everyone records things the same way in all plants with NO duplication of recording.

This helps in training and in reducing lab errors.

Consulting Note 4: Try to establish the list of characteristics as if there were no customers.  Stick to what  you would have the lab testing your products for if you were just bringing the product to market with no customers.

There really should be NO customer specific tests. They are simply tests.  You might choose to run a test on a product for a customer, but during the setup and design of your characteristics it should not be designated as such unless the test is globally known as the “ACME WETTING TEST”.  (yes.. I totally made that up.)  These types of tests are usually application specific tests.  I.e. they are unique to the customers end use of the product, for example, time for a particular paint formulation to dry on a customers proprietary substrate material.

You will have tests, mandated by customers, that must be set up and run as part of a material's standard inspection approval process.  Maybe because that material is only sold to one customer.  But don't make all the tests on the product as customer specific tests.  Only a handful will truly be application or customer specific.  Set them up simply as another test.  If you scan down your final list of GC's and MIC's to create, and in the test descriptions, you constantly see customer names cropping up, you're probably headed for a difficult implementation regardless of what final design you settle on.

Ok.. probably a good stopping point here.

I expect my next blog will deal with the general characteristics and their interaction with the MIC’s when they are linked.

Please add comments and feel free to add any "war stories".  I love to hear of good and bad examples!!!  Especially bad!!

This blog is Copyrighted October 3, 2013 by HCS Enterprises, Inc. This blog may not be used by anyone for any commercial purposes without permission.  It may not be reproduced, in part or in its entirety, in any form, printed or digitally reproduced.  Permission is granted to individuals to maintain a copy for personal use and reference only.  It, or any part of it, is not to be used for training documents, training classes, project documentation, end-user handouts, cheat sheets, reference documents, slide presentations or any other use that may not as yet be envisioned.  Permission for use is provided to SAP under the terms and conditions agreed to by participating on the SCN website.

1.     Introduction

This Blog describes the Quality Control of Geochemical Samples in Mining Industry and the terminology related. Very often in the mining industry, there are various physical, chemical, acid and other tests that are to be conducted to assess the quality of the metal ores. Due to the volatile nature of the various materials such Iron Ore, Phosphorus Ore etc.,, their properties needs to be checked frequently. For example, percentage of moisture, compressive strength, density, Percentage of Oxides, porosity, Loss on Ignition, Metal % etc., change with the time.

2.     Terminology Used in Quality Analysis (Mining Industry)

2.1. Point of Analysis

• Origin Analysis:

Quality results are checked at the Mining site

• Destination Analysis:

Quality results are checked at the Destination/Customer site

• Negotiation:

Quality results are sometimes decided by negotiating between Mining Company & Customer. (Depends on the Agreements between two parties)

2.2. Parties conducting the Analysis

• Client:

Quality results are checked by the Mining Company

• Independent:

Quality results are checked by the Independent Vendor (decided by both Mining Company & Customer)

• Umpire:

Quality results are checked by the Third Party

• Customer:

Quality results are checked by the Customer

2.3. Geographical Location/Testing Laboratory

• Location/Laboratory:

Analysis conducted at a particular geographical place or location. For example, Laboratory, Oman, New York etc.,

3.     Mining Industry Requirement

As the quality parameter values vary frequently, many a times, the quality analysis is carried out is differentiated based on the Geographical location, Time & the party conducting the tests. Due to these reasons, many results are recorded for the same characteristic. In order to accommodate these requirements in SAP Quality Management module, the Origin of Results Data can be used. This concept avoids creating multiple characteristics for the same quality parameter that is to be checked. Moreover, in Mining Industry, the invoicing and billing depends on quality of the mining material. For example, for the Material Ore with less moisture percentage is invoiced with less cost when compared to the Material Ore with more moisture percentage. This can be addressed using the Origin of Results Data.

4.     Significance of Origin of Results Data

The results origin entry defines the source of information. This can be assigned to the characteristic in the Inspection Plan or in the Results recording screen. As long as the inspection characteristic has the status "in process", results origin during results recording can be specified. 

5.     Configuration Required in SAP

Navigation Path: SPRO > Quality Management > Quality Inspection > Results Recording > Define Origins of Results Data

5.1. Detailed Explanation of Configured values

• In the Origin of Results data configured, Z1 to Z8 are analysis values with reference to the Parties conducting the Test (Client/Independent/Umpire/Customer) and the Point of Analysis (Origin/Destination)
• Z9 refers to the negotiated value between Client and the Customer
• ZA to ZB are the values with reference to Geographical location (Oman Lab)
• In addition to the description of the results origin, data source for the inspection results also can be selected in the configuration

6.     SAP Scenario

Below is the scenario demonstrated for usage of Origin of Results Data.

6.1. Master Data

6.1.1.     Master Inspection Characteristic

• Create Master Inspection Characteristic Master using Transaction code QS21
• Iron content (Fe) is considered in the below example with Quantitative characteristic

6.1.2.     Inspection Plan – Result of Origin assignment

• Create Inspection Plan using Transaction code QP01.

• Assign Master Inspection characteristic for the Operation.

• Single Master Inspection characteristic (Fe) is assigned to assess the same characteristic at various ports or at different point of time etc.,

• Select Master Inspection characteristic and Click on General Data Details

• Assign Origin Results Data Z1- Origin - Client Analysis for the Characteristic as shown below.

• Similarly, assign Origin Results Data Z2 - Origin - Independent Analysis for the Characteristic 20 as shown below.

• After assigning the Origin results data for all the characteristics, save the inspection plan. Message will be displayed as below.

6.2. Transaction Steps

6.2.1. Inspection Lot creation

• Create Inspection Lot using Transaction QA01 (Inspection Type 01 is used in the below example).
• Enter Quantity details & assign Inspection Plan.

6.2.2.     Results Recording

• Record the results for the characteristic using QA02/QE51N transaction

• In the Record Results: Characteristic Overview screen, we can observe that the result is recorded for the same characteristic with different Origin Results Data.

7.     Benefits derived with Usage of Origin of Results Data

7.1. Invoicing

Depending on the agreement between the Mining Company and the Customer/Vendor, the appropriate result can be considered for the Invoicing (out of all the values recorded for the same characteristic).

7.2. Batch Update Functionality

Minor enhancement can be done to the standard batch update functionality while taking Usage decision for the inspection lot, in order to update the batch value with one of the results recorded based on pre-configured conditions.

This Blog gives the various Inspection Types applicable for the different Material Movement Types broadly used in day to day transactions.

Types of Inspection

• There are both Stock & Non-stock relevant Inspection types. Stock relevant Inspection has posting to be done along with the Usage Decision. Ex: Inspection Types - 01, 04, 05, 08. Whereas, for Non-stock relevant inspections, only usage decision is applicable. Ex: Inspection Types - 02, 06.

Multiple Inspection Types:

In case of multiple inspection types assigned to the Material from same Inspection Lot Origin, then the system chooses an active inspection type during inspection lot creation based on the following order:

1. The inspection type is determined using a special rule. It can be determined, for example, for inspection lot origin 01 from the quality information record, or for inspection lot origin 03 from the order type.
2. If there is no special rule and the indicator "Preferred inspection type" is set, the system chooses this preferred inspection type for the corresponding inspection lot origin.
3. If the indicator "Preferred inspection type" is not set for any of the inspection types for the inspection lot origin, the system chooses the inspection type that was assigned to the inspection lot origin in Customizing as variant 01.

SAP:  System, application, products in data processing. It took me a while before I could actually remember the abbreviation.

What is SAP? What does it stand for?? Why do people use this?? Ain't the legacy system, MS Office, Outlook cool enough???

All these questions kept haunting me till I actually started working with SAP. I started with QM module as an end user, who's been instructed to carry out few transactions with limited access and who always got to look up to power users & core users, people in power with statements like 'this belongs to system settings and you can't do that', 'Come to me if you have a problem', 'Oh.. what did you do. This would crumble the system' and blah blah.....

Finally, I got an implementation project for SAP upgrade. I was chosen as module lead.

My feelings then,

WoW!! I'm a core user now (the powerful one ). Now I do have all the authorizations, access everything. But wait.. I still do not know how to use them

No issues , I got to play a bit around. I started with very basics. I had As-Is vs To-Be documentation, Integration sessions and Master data followed by testing, defect, re testing, defect, re re testing, defect.... n testing, defect.... Gosh!!

At this point, I used to think 'Now I know all the TCodes, I can prepare master data, I can modify master data. I can decide what value would the system take for a characteristic. I do know QM But this was the time for a twist.

My consultant used to tell me, why don't you drop this requirement. I used to tell him, why don't you simply accept that you don't know how to map this. Then he came up with a new word: RICEWF . Oops, what's that !!

My theory about the QM learning shattered into millions pieces. System, application, product was much easier than Reports, Interfaces, Conversions, Enhancements, Workflow, Forms

Anyway, I got to move further. Z development and then testing, defect, re testing, defect. Modifications done in program, testing & defect gone, but new defect came up, re testing & defect

I somehow learnt to live with this RICEWF thing and my life was moving very happily (with endless loop of testing and defects)

Time for a bang !! Even though it wasn't a Kingkong thing but my dreams of becoming QM consultant started fading away. Security-Basis-Authorization..... another new thing for me. And the worst part again, endless loop of testing defect testing defect testing defect........!!

Finally big day comes with all nervous moments. Go- live. In fact successful go- live .

Suddenly, I found all the statements ('this belongs to system settings and you can't do that', 'Come to me if you have a problem', 'Oh.. what did you do. This would crumble the system' and blah blah..... ) surrounding me. Did I fell into the same shoes or earlier power men were correct, I still don't know.

Never mind, I now know all the things. I know the business mapping, I know the integration part, I know the master data, I know the RICEWFs, I know the BASIS (at least SU53 ), I can instruct people for different tasks. Have I become a SAP QM consultant now, I thought YES but.

T W I S T !!!!

As soon as I started as support team for SAP, I heard about Configuration settings, SPRO .

I did not know about this. Where did this come from? We are done with Go-live and where this config part was hiding whole year. Standard answer: This is consultant job. Now you are going to become a consultant so you must know about the configuration settings.

Ahh.... I started exploring it (and still exploring). Before this moment, I had not used QM beyond our business scenarios.

Exploring further, I landed up on SCN..

What do I find here?  I find several requirements needed to be mapped in different ways, even though they could be similar. I find how a feature can be used in different business cycle. I find the basic concepts which I had never even thought of. I find people struggling to accept the change management. I see people looking around for a solution, SAP just does not recommend. I have found lot of things, I have known lot of things.... So, Have I become a QM consultant?

I guess not. I believe SAP is an ocean & I have got only a drop yet. And this journey is long, very long... So much to learn, so much to explore.

Long journey, challenging journey yet interesting !!!

I'm sure you guys would definitely agree to what I have said.

Foe below result achieved see calculation of how Mean Value, Standard deviation, Cp & Cpk is calculated in standard SAP

See below result of Mean Value, Standard deviation, Cp & Cpk is calculated in standard SAP

From above screen I have taken below reading

1. Calculation of Mean value

So Mean Value,    = (Sum of Recorded Result) / No. of Record

          Mean Value     = 38.667                       

The mean (38.667) is closer to one of them than to the other, leading to a Cpk factor (0.17) that is lower than the Cp value (0.22). This implies that the LSL is more difficult to achieve than the USL. Non-conformities exist at both ends of the histogram.

QM/Characteristics/Specifications/Classification – Blog 3

Previous Blogs:

QM/Characteristics/Specifications/Classification – Blog 1

QM/Characteristics/Specifications/Classification – Blog 2

GC’s and MIC’s  - Linking

So now you have gone through with the client and you have a list of General Characteristics (GC’s) that you need along with the descriptions, UOM’s and decimal places. So what’s next for this master data? I hate to say “that depends” but yes.. it does..

Before we link the GC’s up with a master inspection characteristic (MIC) we need to determine spec ranges or values for the test.  My suggestion is that regardless of whatever design you ultimately decide on, you should at this point determine the maximum ranges you intend to allow for each test.  This is NOT a spec range even though that term is utilized by many.  These values should be the minimum and maximum values that the test can theoretically have. 

Tests measured in percentages are the easiest ones here.  You normally won’t ever report anything below zero or anything above 100. Yes, there are exceptions.  Going above 100% for a measured test is usually pretty rare but it happens.  Some other tests may exceed 100% but these are often calculated tests that involve measuring some type of change.  In any case, you want to establish the highest upper limit and lowest lower limit. These may or may not be similar to what SAP calls an upper or lower plausibility limit which is maintained in the MIC.  Often times however, the plausibility limits may be set to even narrower ranges at times.

For our examples here I will use a percent test and a PPM test.  We will stick pretty much to standard tests for now.  We’ll use 0 – 100% and 0 – 10,000 for ppm. Why 10,000 you say?  Just because in this case.  In reality the people responsible for testing will know what is reasonable.  Just because a test can have a large value doesn’t mean we need to allow it.  Our goal is to reduce errors at every step possible and minimize potential errors that could impact the customer. 

If a customer has a ppm test where they have never, ever, recorded a result over 500 ppm, you might set the upper range to 500.  Even though theoretically a result of 6000 ppm is physically possible. 

A quantitative characteristic will either be a one-sided or two-sided spec.  In a one-sided spec the value will be written as <= 100.0 or >= 100.0.  A two sided spec as 93.0 – 95.0.  Make sure you include spaces between the operand and the values. A key point to keep in mind is that even though SAP allows you to enter  < and > signs they are not honored when linked to a MIC.    SAP will interpret a < as <= and a > as a >= in the MIC.  So if you really want < 100.0, you must enter <= 99.9 so that in the MIC, 100.0 will be valuated as out of spec.

This can cause various problems when using decimals or rounding and in how values are reported.  For more info on this you can check out this SCN discussion: http://scn.sap.com/thread/3170725.

When creating the general characteristic, the unit of measure (UOM), total characters, and number of decimal points must be provided.  The decimal point is a character and must be included in the count of characters.  100.0 would be counted as having 5 characters and one decimal space.

For our two characteristics we set up as follows.

We are now ready to create our general characteristics.   The above info is all you really need to create the general characteristics.  If you are building a spreadsheet for data loading you will need a Data Type field and other fields.  This isn’t a blog about data loading but is primarily about specifications so I’m not going to cover all the fields.  But if you are consulting, some of the fields you should understand and can be valuable to a client are:

On the values screen.. DO NOT click on “additional values” on this screen.

Enter in the range you wish to allow for the test.  For the tests above, this would be <= 10000 and 0 – 100.0.

After making sure the characteristic is released, the new characteristic can be saved.

Qualitative characteristics might be discussed in a different blog since the goal of these blogs is to discuss options for handling spec ranges.  Since qualitative characteristics have no ranges and work by using catalogs, there can be no specs by material or customer.  So they really aren’t relevant to these discussions.

We should now have two general characteristics created.  The next blog will discuss setting up the MIC.

Hello everyone

I was thinking that there are some QM statistics that may be of your interest, so I decided to make this blog post to show you KBAs (Knowledge Base Articles) View Count.

My idea is to make two rankings, Most viewed from Year and Most viewed from Month.

But, what is these rankings for?

I believe that if any ranked KBA did not work for you, you can bring the solution that resolved your problem.

If you guys like this idea, I can monthly update the ranking (if there are changes). Please let me know

5 Most viewed KBAs from 2015*

141 Views - 1705428-  Error message IM254 'Invalid object number (status management)' or IM258 'Object does not exist (status management)' in transaction QM02

117 Views - 1911886- Transaction code QS41 and QS51 ask transport request

106 Views - 1705378 - Dump SAPSQL_ARRAY_INSERT_DUPREC in result recording for an inspection lot when using the BAPI BAPI_INSPOPER_RECORDRESULTS

69 Views -2011512 - Dump SAPSQL_ARRAY_INSERT_DUPREC in program SAPLCOVB

68 Views -1649612 - Error Message M7021 "Deficit of SL Stock in quality inspection" while canceling the goods receipt  for a quality managed material

*Until 09.06.2015

5 Most viewed KBAs from 2014*

229 Views -2011512 - Dump SAPSQL_ARRAY_INSERT_DUPREC in program SAPLCOVB

209 Views - 1911886- Transaction code QS41 and QS51 ask transport request

181 Views - 1705428-  Error message IM254 'Invalid object number (status management)' or IM258 'Object does not exist (status management)' in transaction QM02

178 Views - 1705378 - Dump SAPSQL_ARRAY_INSERT_DUPREC in result recording for an inspection lot when using the BAPI BAPI_INSPOPER_RECORDRESULTS

135 Views - 1959957 - Usage decision result is not transferred to classification system

*Until 29.12.2014

5 Most viewed KBAs from May 2015

26 Views - 1911886- Transaction code QS41 and QS51 ask transport request

22 Views - 1705428-  Error message IM254 'Invalid object number (status management)' or IM258 'Object does not exist (status management)' in transaction QM02

20 Views - 1680949 - Customizing or SAP application menu for the "Copy Inspection Results" function is missing

19 Views - 2068196 - QA495 - Stock Transfer

17 Views -1649612 - Error message M7021 "Deficit of SL Stock in quality inspection" while canceling the goods receipt for a qualitiy managed material

This kind of surprised me! And you, do you use these KBAs a lot in your projects, implementations or daily work?

I'm waiting for your opinion

Regards,

Natália Machado