on 06-15-2012 6:13 PM
Hi,
Does anyone know if it is possible to have a specification record created at the BOM alternative level? Within the SPRC compliance workbench structure, multiple BOM alternatives are reflected as child nodes of the top level material specification although there are no specification master records created at the child level. After running BOMBOS on a material with multiple alternatives, only one alternative is listed as an identifier on the specification master (ID Cat NUM, ID Type BOM). The only reference to the other BOM alternatives I see are within that composition value assignment SAP_EHS_1012_025. Each BOM alternative is listed as a separate value assignment instance. The BOM alternative # is visible only in usage under ValAreaCat 'BOMALT'.
I would like for each BOM alternative to be represented with its own specification record. Is it possible to influence this behavior via config or would this require an enhancement to the BOMBOS program?
Thanks,
Adam
Dear Adam
may be check OSS Note: 1454915. There seems to be an environment parameter BOMBOS_ALTERNATIVE_TRANSFER which should have the value "ALL".
Check this link: http://www.stechno.net/sap-notes.html?view=sapnote&id=1454915
With best regards
C.B.
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Hi Christoph,
Thanks for the prompt response though this note does not address the concern. We have already implemented this parameter and thus the system indeed reflects multiple alternatives in the product structure hierarchy (before setting this, BOMBOS only considered the first alternative). While I can see multiple alternatives in the hierarchy, the system does not generate a separate specification master at that level.
Consider the following example of what I currently see in the compliance workbench:
Material A (Spec ID 1)
--> BOM Alternative 1 (No Spec ID)
-->Material B (Spec ID 2)
-->Material C (Spec ID 3)
--> BOM Alternative 2 (No Spec ID)
-->Material D (Spec ID 4)
-->Material E (Spec ID 5)
What I would like to see is as follows:
Material A (Spec ID 1)
--> BOM Alternative 1 (Spec ID 6)
-->Material B (Spec ID 2)
-->Material C (Spec ID 3)
--> BOM Alternative 2 (Spec ID 7)
-->Material D (Spec ID 4)
-->Material E (Spec ID 5)
Considering how BOMBOS creates specification records at every other level in the hierarchy (including PIR, basic mats, etc), I am quite surprised to not see a separate spec at the alt BOM level.
Regards,
Adam
Dear Adam
which spec type should ID6 or ID 7 have? I was not able to find any customizing activity etc. regarding this. What should happen if you "expand" the whole BOM (you can have levels in BOMs (a material can have its own BOM which can have alternatives etc.))?
I believe the scenario you would like to use is not supported but I am sure that you can use the SAP approach and enhance it. Depending on the number of BOMs and alternatives a lot of specifications would be generated.
In any case: your scenario would have some "pros" which are may be worth to invest time. Cons are: you have a higher number of specifications in your system; you might get problems in data handling (e.g. secondary data determination etc.)
So I am sorry that I can not assist here.
C.B.
PS: it is "quite" tricky to think about scenarios in which you would use the "Engineering Change Management" regarding BOMs. How to deal with that if "BOMs" are defined using change numbers in BOMBOS? What should happen on BOS side if new BOMs are generated etc. using a "Change number"?
PPS: sometimes companies define the "standard" BOM; therefore it might be more "useful" if during BOMBOS one BOS wil get a different usage compared to the others ec.
Hi Christoph,
I would expect the specification type to be 'MAT_PART' - note that this type is already used not only for true material specifications but also at the purchasing info rec level.
As for subassemblies, I would not expect this to behave any differently than is currently being handled where the lower level alternatives are nested beneath the subassembly material. This relationship is displaying as I would expect - the issue is that there is not a specification record created at the higher BOM alternative level.
I have debugged through the code extensively and am convinced it is not possible to generate a specification at the alternative level without an enhancement.
Regards,
Adam
Hello Adam,
Try configuration guide from service market place for Product Variant for SAP Product and REACH Compliance release 2.0, this should help you the achieve this I have done a similar configuration like your requirement, you need to add 2 FM mentioned below.
BB_SUBBOM | PROCURE | 1 | /TDAG/CP_BB20_SUBBOM_PROCURE | [...] |
BB_USAGE | PROD_VAR | 1 | /TDAG/CP_BB20_USAGE_STD_PV |
Gargi
Hello Gargi,
I added these FM to config however BOMBOS still does not generate specifications for the BOM alternatives. Please note that BOMBOS does in fact consider the multiple alternatives and shows them in the compliance workbench hierarchy. The problem is that there is not a specification record created at this level. A representation of what I currently see vs what I want is:
Material A (Spec ID 1)
--> BOM Alternative 1 (No Spec ID)
-->Material B (Spec ID 2)
-->Material C (Spec ID 3)
--> BOM Alternative 2 (No Spec ID)
-->Material D (Spec ID 4)
-->Material E (Spec ID 5)
What I would like to see is as follows:
Material A (Spec ID 1)
--> BOM Alternative 1 (Spec ID 6)
-->Material B (Spec ID 2)
-->Material C (Spec ID 3)
--> BOM Alternative 2 (Spec ID 7)
-->Material D (Spec ID 4)
-->Material E (Spec ID 5)
In your environment, it there a unique specification # assigned to each BOM alternative? Perhaps my illustration above is somewhat misleading - when I choose the BOM alternative there is indeed a spec # shown on the screen, although it is simply a repeat of the spec # assigned above at the material level (Spec ID 1 in the example). What I want is a unique spec that represents each BOM alternative.
Thanks,
Adam
User | Count |
---|---|
10 | |
5 | |
1 | |
1 | |
1 | |
1 | |
1 | |
1 | |
1 | |
1 |
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.