Evaluation of Promise to Pay using FDM_JUDGE

[Former Member]

Hi,

I'm new to SAP FSCM.

I've an open item in worklist against which I created a Promise To Pay(having 7 days tolerance period).

I then posted an incoming payment using F-28 for the above customer and cleared the item.

Now when I'm trying to evaluate the Promise to Pay using FDM_JUDGE, it says that the status for the said invoice has not been changed.

Am I supposed to run FDM_COLL_SEND01 to send data from ECC to FSCM before running FDM_JUDGE.?

[Former Member]

if the item is cleared why do you feel you need to evaluate the line item or the P2P?

When you re-send the AR data - the item wont appear as open, and therefore not used in the valuation process.

Customer normally send AR items daily to Collections Management

A job would run that includes the following steps

FDM_JUDGE
FDM_P2P_CONFIRM
FDM_COLL_SEND01

[Former Member]

the thing is I'm working on an implemantation project and preparing Test Scripts for different scenarios.

So the client wants to evaluate the P2P using FDM_JUDGE and see the status as kept, broken or partially kept in the logs.

I would also like to know when is it appropriate to run FDM_JUDGE. After the Due Date or After the expiry of the Tolerance Days?

[Former Member]

OK a  P2P works as follows

The invoice(s) in the P2P have a "Promised for date" - This is not the invoice date, the due date or the date when the promise was made.

The tolerance will then add "X" amount of days. Once the "X" days has elapsed - the P2P will be seen as broken.

So in the example you have mentioned you wont test it properly.

[Former Member]

I'll give you an example of what I've done and request you to please correct me if you find any error:

On October 7th I made a back dated P2P, Promised for Sept,30th plus 7 days tolerance.

I made incoming payment using F-28 dated Oct,4th against the open item.

So using FDM_JUDGE the Status on Oct,8th should have been 'Kept" as the payment was received within the tolerance period. But it was "Broken".

Can you answer how does the system arrives at a status.

[Former Member]

OK

The first part is fine - back dating the P2P is good

On the 8th you should run the judge and p2p confirm

The line should be updated as broken

transfer the AR data to Collections Management - confirm the Worklist shows the P2P as broken

Make a payment dated the 11th

Run the AR jobs again - and the P2P should disappear.

[Former Member]

why should the line appear be updated as broken when the payment has been received within the tolerance days.?

[Former Member]

It all depends what you are trying to test.

I dont see the point in testing a positive scenario - so the payment is received within the agreed timeframe.

What you really want to prove is that a broken promise is recorded correctly.

There is the ability to add a collection rule to your strategy to include broken promise to pays.

[former_member323401]

Hi Mark,

Firstly thanks for all your responses to Gaurav. Actually we work in the same project. Let me give you the background of the issue here.

Th scenario is :

We have created a promise to pay on X amount which is the full amount of invoice.

We take incoming payment fo full amount X before the Promised for date.

The promise to pay which was earlier active then disappears from the promise to pay tab of the process receivable screen.

But the payments tab in the process receivable tab does not update with the incoming payment for that invoice.

In the invoice tab obviously that invoice gets disappeared as it is not fully paid.

Also when we check either in the customer contacts tab of the process receivable screen or at the UDM_P2P_ATTR table the state of the promise to pay remains unchanged (remains active instead of Kept) also when we run FDM_JUDGE the state remains unchanged for that promise to pay which has been received incoming payment before promised for date.

Also, we wanted to test if the payment tab in the process receivable screen gets updated for taking full incoming payments in the AR side. Also we feel it is because the payment tab is not getting updated for the incoming payments in the process receivable side on the FSCM if we use F-28 for the full payment ofthe invoice, the promise to pay is not getting correctly evaluated when we run
the FDM_JUDGE program.

Please suggest if you have any other views towards the solution of this issue- on improper evaluation of promise to pay due to full payment tabs on getting updated in the process receivable screen when we use tcode F-28 or lock box.

thanks inn advance,

-Bharati Nadkarni

[Former Member]

OK - there are plenty of questions and issues that you are raising here.

It sounds like there MIGHT be an issue with the P2P status profile.

Have you checked in Process Integration - that the "define automatic status changes" has the correct value for your case type?