Why is MSS Approve Working Time setting lock indicator for master data record?

[Garrett_M]

Hello experts,

I've come across a curious issue and I am hoping someone can clarify the cause or propose a solution.

We recently implemented the ESS Record Working Time and MSS Approve Working Time applications in our enterprise portal.  Since then, I have received a few calls from our payroll department indicating that there are several associates who have use the ESS timesheet, but were paid incorrectly due to time evaluation not picking up the time sheet.

I did some research and I could verify that the employee's timesheets were approved and the IT2001 and IT2002 records matched what was in the timesheet.  HOWEVER, when I ran time evaluation for the period, the P2001 and P2002 methods were not reading the employee's master data records and indicated "No entry in table 02/09/2015 - 02/09/2015"  I thought this to be very strange as I could clearly see the records in the employee's IT2001 and IT2002 records.

Upon further research I looked in the PA2001 and PA2002 tables and saw the SPRPS field "Lock indicator for master data record" field was flagged for all the records time evaluation would not pick up.  After going into CAT2 and re-entering the timesheet, the flag was cleared.  I had an employee change their timesheet and resubmit to the manager, no lock indicator set.  Manager then goes to the portal to approve the time, using HRMSS_A_CATS_APPR, and I looked at the employee's records again in PA2002 and PA2001 and the SPRPS field was set to X again.

What does MSS Approve Working Time application have to do with the lock indicator for master data in PA2001 and PA2002?

What will it take to release the lock indicator without having to go into CAT2?

Just as a note, the SM12 CATS_ENQUE does not return anything for these employees, so technically their records aren't locked for update.

Regards,

Garrett Meredith

[siddharthrajora · Accepted solution]

it can be due to authorisation profile, is it happening to selective group of users only? Please chekc the authorisation profile to confirm, you can approve via backend ie cats_appr_lite and then use cat6 to transfer, then see the lock indicator? do you see, ensure this is not the same as MSS user

To the authorization issue: In P_ORGIN one sets up the authorization level field (AUTHC).  The authorization level can have the following values:         R = Read         E = Write with lock indicator  *** create or change infotype               and it is locked Please double check whether your IT2001 and 2002 is set "E". If yes please change to '*' (full authorization).         D = Maintain lock indicator    *** set or delete lock - this               user must unlock and save the infotype         * = All operations Any user with authorization level, E, D, S in P_ORGIN can/does set the lock indicator.  Authorization level E person has the authorization to create a lock record.  Authorization level D changes the lock indicator. Authorization S - write the locked record provided the last person to change the record is not the current user.

[siddharthrajora · Accepted solution]

Infotype 0316 Infotype 0316 represents the authorization for data entry profiles. The subtypes of this infotype are the profile authorization groups. Infotype 0328 Infotype 0328 represents the authorization for reporting and approval. http://help.sap.com/saphelp_dbm600/helpdata/en/64/40050c470211d189720000e8322d00/content.htm Usually it Turns out this issue was related the authorization level setting for IT2001, 2002 and 0316 was 'E' (write 0316 was 'E' (write locked records) it was changed to '*' (full authorization). Then it will work fine. can you check this?

[Garrett_M · Accepted solution]

Hi Siddharth,

Thank you for your response.   I have implemented your suggestion and had our data security team change the authorization from D,E,M,R to *.  Our employees will be entering time today and Monday, so I can verify by midday Monday if no additional record locks are found.  Until then can you explain why this is only happening to a particular group of employees?

All these employees have the exact same security roles, however this is not occurring for everyone.  I find that very strange.

Regards,

Garrett

[siddharthrajora · Accepted solution]

did you compare their roles? typically it depends on roles, if its happening to a few and if there roles are same, we need to check