1 2 3 7 Previous Next

Enterprise Asset Management (SAP EAM)

100 Posts

In the very early stages of implementation, several years ago, standard reports and processes were not satisfying the needs of customers. To fulfill the process needs, I started exploring use of User Exits ( as mentioned in several blogs ). Like-wise for missing fields in standard reports, I opted for Queries and begun to learn this. One of such very early custom reports has been discussed here where I had to make a Z version of IW28.


The Specifics of the need

The need arose, when management wanted to compare the Preventive maintenance hours spent on a critical machine with the Breakdown Hrs for certain period of operation. We have in IW28 the Breakdown Hrs only , field AUSZT (usually M2 notifications), but not any field giving this duration for M3 Notifications i.e., Preventive Hours. I remember this triggered my Technical journey.


The Action

Built a Query based on Infoset using tables VIQMEL and CRHD as shown below (CRHD table is required in case we want Main Work Center in the output, otherwise VIQMEL alone is sufficient.



An o field MntHr (Prevetive maint Hrs) was created in Extras and the following code was given in the code section.



You might have understood that we maintained the Start/end Details of M3 Notifications in the Required Start/End Date/time fields ans we wanted the duration of these time stanps.


And, we designed this report with the field we computed Mnt(Hr) and the standard field BDn(Hr) adjacent to each.



So this task has been fulfilled. The Tcode given was ZIW28,


Then after sometime, we taught customers, how to use the Create Notification menu in the Action Box of a Notification, which in return given rise to another such report requirement. User wanted a report where both Extended Notification (QMNUM) and the Reference (Parent) Notifications (QWRNUM) are available. Though these two fields are part of VIQMEL table, the standard IW28 is not having this Reference Notification number (QWRNUM) field.


So with a similar Infoset as that of first case, I created a report required which as under. (In this case there is no need of Additional fields & calculations). Here is the report.



The first report was very significant for analysis of maintenance functions and so it is very much called (hyper linked) by several other custom reports.


This post is just to share about another common SAP situation, where Infoset queries came to rescue. Forgot to tell you that I named the 2nd report (Tcode) as ZIW28A.



Thank you.

Jogeswara Rao K

One of the very common requirements in SAP-PM while configuring the Notification Type ‘M2’ is that the ‘User should not be able to get the NOCO status to the Notification, until the Malfunction End Date and Time fields (AUSBS & AUZTB) are not filled’.  SAP standard, due to some reason did not provide this, but for all such requirements some or other tool has certainly been provided. The instrument to achieve the present task is User Exit IWOC0002.

Just put the following code in the include here namely ZXWOCU10.


 MESSAGE 'Fill The Malfunction End Date & Time before Completing the Notification' TYPE 'I'.


This code brings you the following pop-up and prevents from NOCO, when you click on the flag .1.JPG




Alternatively we can achieve this, also through User Exit QQMA0014. For this, put the following code in the include here namely ZXQQMU20.



 MESSAGE 'Filling Malfunction End Date/Time is mandatory for completing Notification' TYPE 'I'.

The difference in this case is, after clicking on  NOCO flag ,  the Reference Date/Time pop-up appears (see below).



When continued, the NOCO preventing pop-up (see below) appears  and user will not be able to complete the Notification.




In both the codes, it is assumed that this requirement is for Notification type M2. So make changes in the first line of the codes accordingly as per the Notification type/s relevant to you.



Like another such common requirement by SAP-PM people which was discussed in this post, the present one is also found to be very frequently required. Hence this post. Hope members would find this too useful.



Thank you & Regards

Jogeswara Rao K

There was a query an year ago asking help on an issue:

He was unable to create Refurbishment Order (Order type PM04) because the Equipment field was mandatory in the initial screen itself of IW81. But the Equipment number was not relevant for his Refurbishment process. He was unable to pass through the initial screen because the system was stopping there itself.


Investigation had revealed that

  • The Equipment (CAUFVD-EQUNR) field was marked Req. in the OIAN General settings (not through influencing Order type) which makes Equipment field mandatory for all Order types PM01, PM02, PM03, PM04 etc. 


  • The setting above, in OIAN General settings, checks at the initial screen of the IW31 / IW81 Tcodes .


  • In order to remove the mandatory setting of a field in the initial screen for any of these Tcodes, we need to remove this Req. setting in the OIAN General screen, the effect of which will be simultaneously on all Tcodes. (All Order types)



So, first I asked him to clear this Req. setting in OIAN General screen.


OIAN setting making Equipment field mandatory in the Tcode intial screen itself for all Order types



OIAN After correction



Now his problem was solved. He was able to create the Refurbishment Order.


... But what about the Equipment Mandatory settings for other Order types. By the action above, we have sacrificed this mandatory field setting for Equipments in other Order types also (PM01, PM02, PM03). We need to restore these.


Compensating arrangement for other Order Types (to make Equipment field mandatory)

For this, only alternative is to control them while Order Saving using User-Exit IW010009. Then I suggested to give the following code in the include ZXWOCU07 of this Exit.


IF caufvd_imp-auart = 'PM01'   OR caufvd_imp-auart = 'PM02'   OR  caufvd_imp-auart = 'PM03'.
   IF caufvd_imp-tplnr IS INITIAL AND caufvd_imp-equnr IS INITIAL.
     MESSAGE:  'Please fill Functional Location or Equipment' TYPE 'E' .


Now user gets error message at the Save event, whenever he tries to create an Order other than Refurbishment (PM04) without Equipment and/or Functional Location fields filled.

This addressed his issue in total.Felt like sharing this important observation with the forum.



Thank you

Jogeswara Rao K

The objective of this post is to bring clarity in understanding the two often confused terms viz, Availability and Reliability, by explaining in simple perspective for the purpose of understanding by a common maintenance man.


Let’s try to understand through this picture.



This is the time-line of a particular Equipment where U is Operating time (Uptime in Hrs), D is Repair time (Downtime in Hrs). A total period of 6 weeks has been taken for analysis.


Two cases have been depicted here.



No. of Failures  = 6 (Denominator for MTTR, MTBR Calculations)

Total Uptime  = U1 + U2 +U3 + U4 + U5 + U6 + U7.  = Say 900 Hrs

Total Downtime = D1 + D2 + D3 + D4 + D5 + D6.     = Say 108 Hrs


We know that MTTR  (Mean Time to Repair in Hrs) =  ( D1 + D2 + D3 + D4 + D5 + D6 ) / 6 = 18 .

Similarly MTBR (Mean Time Between Repairs in Hrs) = ( U1 + U2 +U3 + U4 + U5 + U6 + U7 ) / 6 = 150 .



Equipment Availability (%) is: Up Time / Total Time   = (900 / 1008)  * 100  =  89.2


Another formula for Equipment Availability in practice is   [MTBR / (MTTR + MTBR)] * 100   = (150 / 168 )*100   = 89.2



No. of Failures  = 2 (Denominator for MTTR, MTBR Calculations)

Suppose here too we get the same total values like:

Total Uptime  = U1 + U2 +U3  = Say 900 Hrs

Total Downtime = D1 + D2 =  Say 108 Hrs


MTTR (H) =  ( D1 + D2) / 2 = 54 .

MTBR (H) = ( U1 + U2 + U3) / 2 = 450 .


Equipment Availability (%) is: Uptime / Total Time   = (900 / 1008)  * 100  =  89.2


Through other formula for Equipment Availability :  [MTBR / (MTTR + MTBR)] * 100   = (450 / 504 )*100   = 89.2

We have seen the Availability, Now let’s see the Reliability. What is Reliability?


Reliability can be broadly defined as the probability that an Equipment will perform its intended functions continuously for a specified duration.


How do we measure Reliability

  1. MTBR (H) value is a direct measure of Reliability. More the MTBR more is the Reliability.
  2. The Failure Rate (ʎ): In simple expression this can be calculated as No of Failures / Total Time



Now Let’s tabulate the results

CaseDuration (H)FailuresDowntime (H)Availability (%)MTBR (H)Failure Rate (ʎ)


We have clearly seen that for the same amount of Equipment Availability, Equipment Reliability changes drastically. So our Equipment in Case2  is more reliable.


Here I want to share a screen-shot ( used in one of my previous documents ) . This has a realtime data of an Equipment with performance relevant to present discussion. See this picture.


The Equipment03 in Year 1314 has Availability of the order 99.58% but lowest Reliability (MTBR) of 95.57 Hrs. Compare this with the 2nd line: Equipment02 has lowest Availability 99.39% but good Relaiability (MTBR) around 400 Hrs


So, we understand that

A Highly Reliable Machine can be Highly Available Machine, but the converse need not be true.


Lastly, let’s try to understand the practical significance of the term Reliability. In process industries if a chain of machines run without any problem for several hours then a stage comes for the final equipment deliver the finished product. Often paper industry is quoted  as an example. If a machine breaks down like case1, the finished paper will never come-out of the paper machine.


Then, a question might arise, that 'Why Reliability can not be directly based on the No. of Failures?'  The answer could be 'Yes, it is ! But it is calculated as a function of No. of Failures per a Specified period , where this period might differ from process to process and hence the acceptability of Reliability Index'.



Hope members will like this post.



Thank you & Regards

Jogeswara Rao K



The formulae used here in this post are in their simplest form for understanding purposes. They might not exactly match with those mentioned in different contexts like OEE calculations etc.

Please find below STD SAP Behavior for Work Order Dates Definitions.

This prepared on the basis of SDN Thread Posted on the SCN EAM Forum.


1) Basic Start - This is the date on which u want to start your work... (No calculation is involved)

2) Basic Finish Date. - This is the date on which u want to finish your work. (Priority type can influence this date. Depend on priority type. Which u have selected in order header.)


3) Schedule Start Date - this is the start date of work as per system. This date is totally depend on scheduling type..

Example - 1 in forward scheduling it remain fixed and schedule finish date & basic finish date would be varying according to the work hours in operation.

4) Schedule Finish Date - this is the finish date determined by system as per the scheduling type.

Example-1 - if scheduling type is backward, then basic fin. And schedule finish date would be same. And schedule start date would be shifted according to the work hours in operation.


In the case of current scheduling both type (basic and schedule date) of start & finish dates remains same... as per the work hour it may overload the work center capacity or it may not

  1. Call Date doesn't influence basic and schedule Dates.
  2. Basic starts dates would equal to plan date of maintenance call object (because this is only the due date)
  3. Again basic end dates are depend on Priority type (what we have selected in Maintenance plan) & scheduling types
  4. Scheduled start/end dates depends on total work hours in task list and scheduling types.


If we have assigned maintenance packages to the task list and using strategy plan...

Then Order basic start date would be govern by Initial buffer in maintenance package

And basic end date would be govern by sub sequential buffer in maintenance package.


New basic start = Plan Date - initial buffer

New basic finish = plan date + subsequent buffer.


Reference Date & Time--> Date and time on which the system enters completed PM and CS orders and notifications in the history. This Date and time can be used as per User requirement.

On June 18th, 2014 Jason Moore with Marathon Oilpresented an ASUG EAM Community Webcast titled “Mobility, Usability or Both”.This webcast was part two of our four part webcast series recapping the SAP EAM Centric 2014

(http://www.sap-centric-eam.com) conference that was held in Austin, Texas in February. This exciting webcast really hit home with me as my company Fairfax Water, is scheduled to implement SAP Mobile in the near future.


Marathon Oil, in my opinion, has really put a lot of thought into improving the SAP user experience. SAP has never been accused of being user friendly but Marathon Oil has taken the approach not for user acceptance, which is the buzz word I have heard for six years since my company implemented SAP, but make the user happy. What an extraordinary idea. What if our users were actually happy and in training, which Marathon has greatly reduced, users said “that was easy”.


The part of the webcast that really caught my attention is that Marathon Oil not only has implemented SAP Mobile solution, but for the casual desktop user , they have GuiXT (www.GUIXT.com) to simplify the SAP experience. So many part-time users complain that SAP is not easy to use, so to implement GUIXT on a desktop platform just makes sense to me.

My company made the decision to make GuiXT our mobile solution which has been successful but not ideal. GuiXT is used to simply the overcomplicated SAP transactions that users find painful. So imagine performing a painful Service Entry Sheet in GuiXT where you can take this six to seven screen process down to a minimalistic screen that can be done with a radio button or check box just makes sense. Jason also explained that Marathon’s super users do not use GuiXT or SAP Mobile, these artisans make use of full blown SAP and they like it. I can think of a hand full of users at my company that this would exist, everyone else would “Enjoy” a simple interface.

GUIXT Desktop.jpg



After a proof of concept phase of mobile, Marathon decided on using SAP Mobile Work Manager (formerly Syclo) to use as their mobile solution. Coupling this with an IPad, Marathon has implemented a powerful out of the box solution with a stable iOS platform for a relatively inexpensive solution. Marathon did upgrade the IPad protective case so that a SAP user can use this in an oil field, to update their Notification, execute time confirmation and the best part of the webcasts, not only empower their users, not as a data entry clerk (which I hear daily from our maintenance staff) but as a decision makers. Giving their workers all the information they need to do their job in the palm of their hands is something I wish I had as a plant mechanic back in the 1990's.


SAP Work Manager POC. png.jpg


Jason did a great job explaining how Marathon Oil is attacking the overcomplicated, not user friendly SAP platform by making it easier to use for their employees (wow earth shattering). Not only for the mobile users but for the casual users without hindering the power (super) users who find SAP not difficult mostly because they are using the system everyday.

Here is one of Jason’s key takeaway’s that I can very much relate to from his presentation:


"Usability and Mobility mut be a unified effort that is built for the front-line by the front-line and is not just a flashy add-on to SAP."


I could not agree more!



Here is a link for ASUG Members to Jason's presentation and webcast recording:


ASUG.com - Events



Our next webcast in this series for ASUG EAM Community members will be held on July 30th 12pm-1pm EST.

This webcasts features Scott Allen with Denbury Resources. Scott will be talking about Bills of Material. Scott's presentation was the top rated presentation at SAP-Centric EAM 2014 conference.

I hope you can join this one.


ASUG.com - Events


Jeff Smith

ASUG Plant Maintenance SIG Program Chair


Hello Friends,

We know that user-exit IWO10009 (PM Order: Customer Check for 'Save' Event) has been provided to specify our conditions to be fulfilled for a PM Order to get through 'Save' event. The Function-exit here namely EXIT_SAPLCOIH_009 is based on a structure CAUFVD wherein user gets many fields of Header and Operation Tabs directly to define his conditions for ‘Saveevent.

In this blog let's see the codes for simple applications first and then reach the subject matter.  All the codes discussed in this post are needed to be put in the include ZXWOCU07 provided in this Exit.)


Let's look at a simple code given below .


 MESSAGE: 'Please fill either F/Location or Equipment' TYPE 'E' DISPLAY LIKE 'I'.


The code above, checks (for Order types PM03, PM02) whether both the Functional Location and Equipment fields in the Reference Object screen are left blank and in such case stops the Order to be Saved / Created giving rise to the error message below




Similarly the code below forces the user to fill the Plan Section in the Location field of PM04 Order.


 MESSAGE 'Please fill Plant Section in Location Tab’ TYPE 'E' 



So what I want to say is, such are varied needs of users and these can be met with the simple syntaxes as shown above.


Now, let’s see a requirement for checks in the Components tab. The structure in the user exit (CAUFVD) does not have the fields of Component tab (RESB structure) such as MATNR (Material code), BDMNG (Quantity) etc. So we can not readily incorporate checks on Material related information in a PM Order to prevent ‘Save’ event.


This requirement has been addressed in the following syntax, as a result the code is a bit lengthier.


Case1: User wants check on the MRP Types of the components used- Means Order should accept Components of certain MRP types only.


The Code for this:

 ASSIGN ('(SAPLCOBC)resb_bt[]') TO <FS_RESB>.
 I_RESB[] = <FS_RESB>.
 MESSAGE: 'Please check the MRP type of the component materials used' 


The above code refuse the Order to be saved in case the MRP types of components used belong to 'P1', 'P2' or 'P3'.



Take this as a code-key to unconventional requirements. Study what extra has been used here. Yourself and/or your ABAPer will be able to solve several such requirements using this technique, where user-exit structures do not directly support the requirements.



Case2: Similar was another requirement where, changes in Material Quantities are not acceptable once the PM Order has been set to REL status


This is the code for this purpose:

 ASSIGN ('(SAPLCOBC)resb_bt[]') TO <FS_RESB>.
 I_RESB[] = <FS_RESB>.
* Get Status line of the PM Order
 SPRAS         = SY-LANGU
 LINE          = V_STAT.
 IF V_STAT+0(3) = 'REL'.
 MESSAGE: 'Component changes not accepted after release of Order' TYPE 'E'.


The things usually in author’s mind while posting such information

  • Create repository of ready solutions to frequently asked questions
  • Let functional man become self-reliant in working with User-Exits through simple coding logics like these.



Hope this post too helps members


Thank you

Jogeswara Rao K

During the implementation of SAP-PM years ago, one of the several questions arose in our minds was ‘Why SAP allows Technical Completion, before all Operations attain a CNF status, as whole the Order itself attains a CNF status?’.  We began to understand later that this flexibility might have been provided to facilitate several other business requirements. At the same time SAP has provided Enhancements to customize specific business needs of the end-user.

The present subject is a kind of very frequently asked requirement. So it is though a documented reference would be better serving the forum members.

Here it is about how we achieve it.

The user-exit we use for this purpose is: IWO10004 - Maintenance order: Customer check for order completion.


Put the following lines in the include ZXWO1U03 (of Function Exit EXIT_SAPLCOIH_004)


 SPRAS         = SY-LANGU
 LINE          = V_LINE.
 IF V_LINE+5(3) <> 'CNF'.
 MESSAGE: 'Order can not be completed before reaching CNF status' TYPE 'I'.

The screen-shot of the include after implementing the code.


With this code in the include, whenever user tries to Technically Complete an Order before one or many operations are not confirmed, in other words before the Order itself reaches the CNF status, he will be getting this pop-up.


(You may customize the above message as per your requirement in the line no.14 of the code)

No further activity is seen.

Once the Order reached the CNF status, it will be ready for TECO, the user-exit code does not come in the way.



Observe Line 3 of the code, this line confines this restriction to one Order type i.e., ZM03. In case of generalized use remove the Code lines 3 and 17.

In case of specific Order type usage then replace ZOM03 by your Order type.


Hope members will be benefited by this blog too.



Thank you

Jogeswara Rao K



I would Like share with you all below Next Plan Date Calculation Logic For Multiple Counter Plan.


It will help to understand Basics of Multiple counter Plan..


Formula for calculating the Start date of Maintenance Counter plan is based on below formula
[(Cycle Length-Current Counter Reading) / Annual Estimate x 365 Days] + Date on which the measurement reading or counter reading was taken

For example :
Annual Estimate  = 600 Hrs (A)
Cycle Length       = 100 Hrs (B)
Initial Counter Reading = 0 Hrs     (C)

Reading taken on 25.03.2013
Plan Date of Maintenance plan = (100-0)/600*365 + Date of counter reading taken   = 48 Days + 25.03.2013 = 12.05.2013
When measurement is entered as 120 from initial reading 0, the call will generate today as it passed 100. Remaining 20 is not considered for calculation of new planned date.
Now here the starting of counter reading will be considered as 120 and next plan counter reading will be 220 as Cycle is 100.
So if we enter the counter reading as 160, in formula the difference of counter reading to be taken as 220-160=60 Hrs
Next plan date will be calculated on the basis difference of counter reading as 60 Hrs.
So from current date it will calculate the next plan date for 40 Hrs (100-60)





We are happy to announce that the agenda for the International SAP Conference on Asset Management — taking place on October 7–8, 2014 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands — is now live. Please click here to discover our event highlights and customer case studies, which include:


  • Asset performance management implementation at Bayer CropScience
  • Integration of maintenance and reliability processes and IT tools at Shell Manufacturing sites
  • Asset lifecycle budgeting at Nuon
  • Field service optimization – mobile fast-track implementation at TMVW
  • The challenges of reaching a unified approach to asset management at Tata Steel UK
  • Optimizing MRO spare parts planning at SABIC
  • Implementation of SAP solutions for enterprise asset management at Bridgestone Europe


Over two information-packed days in Amsterdam, this event will give you unique access to SAP leadership and solution experts, our partner ecosystem, and experienced SAP users from a diverse range of asset-intensive industries.

Whether you are an experienced practitioner, or are new to SAP, you will find content shaped to meet your needs – from preconference workshops, through to customer case studies, SAP solution overviews, cutting-edge insight from thought leaders, and of course, a multitude of networking opportunities.

For more information please visit the event website, or to view the brochure now, click here.



In SAP Plant Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance can be done in many ways.


  • Time Based Maintenance
  • Performance Based Maintenance
  • Time or Performance Based Maintenance (whichever comes first)


Time based Maintenance will work based on Normal Daily Calendar or Plant Factory Calendar or Maintenance Department Factory Calendar. Whatever the technique, system will calculate exact no. of days mentioned in Cycle Frequency of Maintenance Plan. Here, scheduling will schedule & plan the call objects for the whole Scheduling period mentioned in Maintenance plan.


But Performance based plan works in other way. Performance based plan works based on the Running Hours. KM, etc., as Measuring points for measuring the Performance of the equipment. In this case, system plan date will keep on gets changed based on daily usage of Equipment. It counts only Performance of the equipment, so plan date can't be static.


Recently, there is a thread which talks about different scenario & different queries by the Author.


Single cycle count scheduling


To answer his questions as well as to make this process understandable for everyone, this document has been created.



Performance Based Plan:

Master Data:


All Master Data (viz., Equipment, Measuring Point, Task List, Maintenance Plan) have been created.


As Measuring Point & Maintenance Plan have more importance in scheduling, those screen shots have been posted below.


Measuring Point:


Measuring Point has been created for KM with Annual Estimate as 300. Here, Annual Estimate has been taken as half of the Cycle Frequency for which Maintenance Order should be created. In this example, Maintenance plan call frequency is 564 KM. (All data have been copied from that reference thread).




Maintenance Plan:


Maintenance Plan has been created with Cycle Frequency as 564 KM, Call Horizon as 100 %, Scheduling Period as 2 years, Shift Factor for Late Completion & Early Completion as 100 % and Start of Cycle reading as Zero (0).








Process Flow:


Before updating the Measurement document for KM Measuring point, it's not possible to schedule the orders in IP10. It will provide the Information message as "No Counter Reading found ......" & there won't be any planned calls generated.


So, just create the variant in IP30 (Deadline Monitoring) program with that Maintenance plan & schedule background job for that variant in SM36.


1st Measurement Document:


Measurement document has been created with KM reading as 123.




1st Scheduling: through IP10 / IP30 (In IP30, mention the Interval for Call Objects as 7 days)


Both calls are in "ON HOLD" status as Measurement reading doesn't match the Cycle frequency value of Maintenance plan.





2nd Measurement document:


Measurement document has been created with KM reading as 450.





2nd Scheduling: through IP10 / IP30 (In IP30, mention the Interval for Call Objects as 7 days)


Both calls are in "ON HOLD" status as Measurement reading doesn't match the Cycle frequency value of Maintenance plan. But Call dates are different when compared to 1st Scheduling.





3rd Measurement Document:


Measurement document has been created with KM reading as 580.


Now 1st call object has been called as Current KM Counter reading (580) crosses Maintenance plan cycle frequency (564).






3rd Scheduling:


Scheduling has been done which has generated the Order for 564 KM. As KM reading crosses the Cycle frequency, Call status will be as "NEW START SAVE TO CALL".





Measurement Document at PM Order TECO:


Order generated on 564 KM reading has been executed & after finishing all the operations, PM Order TECO should be done. While doing PM Order TECO, there is an option to create Measurement Documents. This will get updated in IP10 scheduling against corresponding call object.


Here, Measurement document has been created say, for KM reading as 640. Here, Scenario is that Preventive Maintenance has been done during the run of the equipment. Because of Preventive Maintenance, there is no stoppage in usage of that Equipment. So, Initial reading (580) & Completion reading (640) are different.


In some cases, Initial & Completion reading will be same.










4th Scheduling:


This is after creating the Measurement document while doing PM Order TECO. In below screen shot, Completion Counter Reading for 1st Call object has been updated.




Based on Completion Reading at Previous Call Object (1st Call Object), next call object (2nd Call object) Planned counter reading has been changed.


As per the Master data, Cycle Frequency is 564. So, 2nd Call object should have been generated as 1128. But in below screen shot, Next planned Counter reading is showing as 1204 (640 + 564).


To make system behave this lies with Shift factor mentioned in Maintenance Plan. In Maintenance plan, it has been mentioned as Shift factor for late completion as well as for early completion as 100 %. So, Next call object Planned reading is getting shifted 100 %.







If there should not be any shift in this Planned Counter Reading for Subsequent call objects, then Shift Factor for Early or Late completion % should not be maintained.


Here Annual Estimate has been Maintained with some unrealistic value as 300 KM. So by maintaining some small value in Annual Estimate (approx half of the Cycle frequency), system will only consider the Measurement document reading i.e., Maintenance will be purely on Performance based.

To state, that I am less than mechanical would be putting it mildly.  Growing up , I made it a point to be absent, when “ mechanical work” was involved .And that dedication to absence has paid off handsomely in being able to avoid this type of work most of my life. While, I did my preemptive website research to learn as much about this child's Playset product and assembly process as possible, on the day of assembly, I was greeted with three large boxes and a 50 page printed manual. I was hoping that the 50 pages were really just 15 pages in three languages, but no such luck.


Each page contained multiple assembly steps, supported by helpful terms like “off-center”,” right center” and “mirrored”. Much of the hardware, wood pieces and fasteners were very similar in size and the assembly required the constant use of a tape measure to ensure that we had the right length and diameter screws or board widths. Because nothing was pre- assembled, you literally built the Playset with one fastener and board at a time.


When constructing the right and left  frames, which would eventually be tied together to form the center of the swing set, determining what board  to select based on hole configuration and placement of attachment, became an exercise in trial and error.  While my daughter’s boyfriend is highly mechanical, we still needed to do quite a few “do overs”. However, if I had been left to my own devices, I can’t imagine the horror that would have unfolded.


This week, Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) and Maintenance Repair Operations (MRO) professionals will gather during Mainstream Conference 2014 to witness the latest best practices and innovations supporting equipment maintenance operations.


During the conference, SAP will be showcasing new innovations that directly impact worker productivity at the point where work is done. These innovations deliver organizational knowledge, increased intelligence and improved operating transparency where work is performed and equipment is utilized.


While, we had the luxury of building our Playset through trial and error, a maintenance technician must be able to assess, diagnose and correct a problem quickly, while documenting the work.  Leveraging, SAP innovations like mobile computing, incorporating 3D Visualization, provides the maintenance technician with his or her own personal navigator using animated, guided, step by step instruction.


Highlighting and seeing specific parts move, rotate and slide in and slide out of their required position is far easier to understand than viewing a flat image on a page. And while they say a picture is worth a 1000 words, an animated 3D picture with guided instructions is worth far more, especially when that picture ties back to the core information systems which run  the business.


On Wednesday morning, June 18, Paul Boris, Global VP, Manufacturing & Operations Mobility, from SAP will discuss how companies can fully leverage their knowledge workers by further empowering workers through innovation at the point where work is performed and equipment is utilized, during his talk the “The Rise of The Humans”.


Please be sure to stop by the SAP demo pod to see the latest in worker empowerment, focused on Predictive Analytics, Mobility with GIS space recognition and 3D visualization.


While attending, you will receive a complimentary copy of the Aberdeen Research benchmarking report, Maintenance, Repair, and Operations (MRO) in Asset Intensive Industries, and an opportunity to win a pair of Vuzix virtual reality smart glasses.


We look forward to meeting with you and discussing how SAP can assist your company in making maintenance repair operations more simple and effective.


Warmest regards,


Harry Blunt
Director of Field Marketing, Manufacturing, N.A.

SAP and Creativity


We know that the Business practices across SAP clients vary widely and there exist requirements which often do not have ready solutions in SAP standard processes. After years of exposure to SAP and SCN, I arrive at an opinion that the solutions for all such requirements fall largely in 2 categories.

  • Through Developments
  • Through Creative use of SAP Standard Objects


This blog is about the later. In my experience there were several such innovative ideas which resolved vital issues, by using the SAP in a creative way.


After all, what is this Creativity?

Definition by my own experience can be  ‘The process of thinking out of the box, to arrive at solutions with available resources’. To illustrate the comments so far, I would like to narrate few cases I remember presently.




One day an End-user came to me, and told that he got created Measuring points for ‘Oil top-up’ one each in his 110 Functional Locations. This happened some 6 months ago and he had been creating Measuring Documents on these points. Suddenly he realizes that he is unable to get the cumulative values in IK17 report. What happened was these MPs were not mapped as Counters, due to communication gap between the user and the Masterdata person. Now the process is not reversible.


Solution provided

We are having an Infoset Query for measuring documents (just like IK17), made to accommodate the Equipment Description in the output, Authorization Group in the Selection screen, which are not available in IK17. This Z-report was then run for him with his MPs data, output sorted F/Location-wise (his machine-wise) and clicked on Sub-Total icon.  So the required cumulative values are there in the form of SubTotals.



It is important to mention here that the standard report IK17 has no  icon in the Application Tool bar. Had it been there, there would not be the need for Infoset Query. Sub-totals there itself (in IK17) would have resolved the issue.





There was a requirement of multiple Employee assignment to each Task in a Notification.  The way Work Centre is assigned to each Operation in an Order, the user wants to assign multiple Employee codes to a particular task. (List of employees engaged for this Task)


Solution Provided

It is through Status Profile. (Tcode OIBS). Created a Status Profile as under without Status Number (to have multiple selection), giving the Employee code in the Status and Name in the Short Text.



And assigned this Status Profile to Task like this (in OIBS)



And then, while Creating Notification a Task line has been selected --> the icon at the bottom was clicked to get this screen


Here the Status Profile created through OIBS was assigned. Now you have got the list of Employees with check boxes. Select the employees and click Back to reach the Tasks screen. Here the selected Task had all the Employee codes assigned in the User Status field.



There was a requirement to map the process of arriving at the Root Cause of a Breakdown through 5-Why method, in SAP. We used Catalogs and Codes in an innovative way as explained in this  document. Root Cause Analysis through 5-Whys



There was a requirement to have Planning board type Activity chart for major repairs carried out using Maintenance Orders. Here Tiny Graphics were used in Smartforms to mark the Activity along the period. Please see this document where it was explained. Innovative use of Graphics in Smartforms - 2 Ideas



There are several such. I have explained the Case2 in detail only to benefit members interested in this specific issue, but the theme and focus of this post is to emphasize on the ‘Benefits of thinking out of the Box’ while searching for solutions in SAP standard.


It was repeatedly experienced that things thought and told not possible always seen happened later through ways and means like above. After realizing this, we do not use expression 'not possible', rather we use the words 'Let's study the possibilities' .


It is believed that post like this will be helpful more to the Beginners of SAP.



Thank you

Jogeswara Rao K

SAP is pleased to announce that we will be exhibiting at Mainstream 2014, a globally acclaimed interactive conference focusing on the strategic areas of reliability, asset management, maintenance, and shutdowns.


The event features more than 40 sessions, workshops, roundtables, and panel discussions, plus a plethora of networking opportunities and social gatherings.


Meet with SAP experts at Mainstream 2014 and learn how to:

  • Integrate business processes with analytics, visualization, mobility, and operational risk management capabilities
  • Increase reliability
  • Reduce risk
  • Embrace new technology and standards to unlock the true potential of your assets and your people

We also encourage you to join us for SAP expert Paul Boris’ presentation, “Rise of the Humans,” on Wednesday, June 18. The session will focus on how organizations can leverage the latest technology to address essential workforce challenges and gain a competitive advantage.

Register online or contact The Eventful Group at 1-877-411-4675 or 914-509-5354 to join us. For more information, please visit the conference Web site at www.mainstreamconference.com/na.

We look forward to meeting with you in Austin, Texas!

Recently, I came across a new requirement where user status reversal should be authorized by Superior. User Status change can be controlled by Authorization Key. By assigning Authorization Key to user statuses, same user can set as well can reverse the status based on Lowest & Highest Number.


If one user (USER 1) can set the user status but should not reverse the user status to previous & the superior user (USER 2) can / cannot set the user status also he should provide approval to the USER 1 to change / reverse the status, then configurations should be done accordingly.


This document is having this User Status control based on user authorisation as reference for this document. (Thanks to Riyaz Maner).


User Status Configuration (OIBS)





Initial Status "CRTD" has been set while creating new document






Set Status from CRTD (Created) to ISSD (Issued)






Reversal of ISSD (Issued) status to CRTD (Created)






Approving Authority changes to Status as token of Approval (ISSD - issued to ISCR - Issued Reversal to Created)






Reverse Status to CRTD - Created









Here all the "Reversal" statuses should be assigned to Authorized User (Manager) using Authorization Key. Other statuses can be assigned only to End User (Planner) / both End User (Planner) as well as Authorized User (Manager) using Roles & Authorization in PFCG.


Conclusion: By having this, developments can be avoided for these controls in user status


Filter Blog

By author:
By date:
By tag: