Place SFC on hold: what about laborOff

[Former Member]

Dear Experts,

could someone comment on this please:

when putting SFC on hold, by setting the rule of this activity, the a signOff on this SFC can be executed prior to putting SFC on hold.

What about laborOff? Is this considered?

Can I blame ME, that if laborOff is not executed during this signOff, I no more can labor of the users after putting SFC on hold?

Could someone please comment, if I should follow this use case as an incident?
Thanks!

I face this problem with SAP ME 6.1.4. Is there a change in SAP ME 15.0?

Regards,

Andrej

[alexander_teslyuk]

Hello Andrej,

Normally, if you sign off using the separate SignOff button, you should add LaborOff activity to the same button. That is why I am not positive it can be considered as a bug. Can you workaround it by adding LaborOff activity to HOLD or SignOff button in POD?

Br, Alex.

[Former Member]

Hi Alex,

thank you very much for your fast reply.

The problem is, that the putSfcOnHold happens from SAPMEINT workflow and not from a POD. For example the SFC is per default put on hold (with the whole shop order), when for example the routing changes and the shop order is re-sent to me. In this case I do not even have the possiblity to interact, unless I would wirte a service extension. As it is not so easy to dermine the users, which are labored on on the SFC, this would be not so easy. Therefore I assume it is "missing" also in the standard. Can this scenario, as this is the standard way be considered as a bug?

In the case where I call the PAPI to put sfc on hold, I will need to take care of laboring the users off. I will try to identiy the users labored on on that SFC.

Regards,

Andrej

[alexander_teslyuk]

Hi Andrej,

I have not re-tested this scenario and that is why would like to ask one more question: am I right that you have a chance to Labor Off if you do not set the activity rule to make a Sign Off ?

If so and taking into account that Labor Off should be added to the SignOff button even, it seems to be a good candidate for the enhancement but not actually a bug. And hence should not be processed via support incident.

I think it can be considered as a bug only on condition that you do not have a chance to Labor Off at all on Shop Order update from ERP.

Br, Alex.

[Former Member]

Hello Alexander,

you are right, you technically still can sign off of the SFC.

But there are some integrated processes where the SFC is moved to another routing beause of ERP change and then the user can no more sign off.

So i definitely see this as a process gap. But there is a way to solve this through a service extension.

Regards,

Andrej