cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Update Quality Level for MIC After Result Recording, whereas DMR is active at UD level

busyaban7
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi Experts,

I need a help in understanding a point. Below is the situation I am working with -

a) DMR setup is active at UD level (And not at inspection lot creation)

b) "3 Dynamic Modification at Char. Level" is selected at routing header level and at operation => Characteristic level, DMR is selected.

c) Inspection Point 100 is used for creating multiple inspection points for recording results.

If this is really possible to update Q-Level after MIC status is "5" (closed ==>  be it Accept or Reject)? If so, how to achieve it.

Is it possible to achieve the above requested functionality by implementing enhancement QEEM0006, user exit EXIT_SAPLQEEM_006 or FM: QDBU_QUALITY_LEVEL_POSTING. Or, there is any other means possible to achieve it?

Also please let me know what all the potential drawback or issues may happen if we try to fix this requirement.

Many thanks in advance for your guidance and help.

Thanks,

Arijit

Accepted Solutions (0)

Answers (1)

Answers (1)

busyaban7
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi Experts,

If anyone has worked with such a requirement of updating quality level during result recording, please can you suggest your thoughts here.

Also, please can you suggest the EXIT/BAPI/BADI which checks and updates the Quality Level status (QDQL-PRSTUFENAE) at/after posting UD.

Thanks in advance for your help!!

Arijit 

busyaban7
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi Arunkumar,

Many thanks for your response. The pointers you have suggested are good but they are too generic to work with.

To give you some further insights - ours is a situation where Quality Level for MIC is managed with DMR rule which is active during UD. But User's requirement was to update Quality Level after Result Recording itself, based on MIC result is Good or Bad. For example -

MIC1 ==> RR => OK, Status "5" ==> User do not wish to wait till UD happens through RFC call sometimes later, and wish to update the Quality Level immediately after RR. Standard SAP do not support this process, as Q-Level update takes place at insp lot creation or at UD!!

Looking for further inputs form experts, if someone has handled such a situation before.

Thanks,

Arijit

former_member42743
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

I have not had to do this particular problem.  But I believe and agree with your finding that the MIC quality level, (QL), will not be updated until you do the UD.

The one possibility that you might consider is setting this up as an inspection point. Then when the inspection point is valuated you MIGHT see the QL updated. Each inspection point valuation might update the QL.  SAP may then suppress the QL update at UD in that case.  But I can't say I've tested that in any shape or form.  Just throwing it out as an idea that I would probably test as an option if faced with the same requirement.

Keep in mind that if you were to basically manually update the QL via one of the user exits when the result was saved, I'd suspect you'll need another user exit at time of UD to reverse or suppress an update to the QL caused by the UD.  If u were to switch to QL update at lot creation you'd need to reverse any update there as well.  You basically would have to design a means to make sure the QL is not updated twice by the one result.  That could get very complicated very fast.  Especially if you only want this functionality for certain MIC's, or certain plants.  And if they want it for everyting now, that might not be the case 5 years from now.

The issue with updating the QL when the MIC is closed, is that until the UD is done, anyone can go back in and change the result.  This would also need to be trapped in any user exits/customizations.  What would you do on a change of the result and the user exits trigger again.

Good luck!!!!  Keep us abreast of your findings!

Craig

busyaban7
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi Craig,

Thanks for your inputs.

Yes, you are correct that we are trying to achieve this new ways of working for inspection points, either that is "Accepted" / "Rejected" or simply for the MIC. You gave me a correct pointer that while I design this new solution to update Q-Level in forward moving scenario, I should keep in mind that in case of "Rejected" MIC/Insp Point, the Quality Level adjustment backwards needs to be taken care to nullify the impact!! Thanks a lot for this guidance.

Right now I am trying to check if I can use the enhancement QDSE0003, Exit: EXIT_SAPLQDQV_003 and call it after Result recording close & saved. If that is not possible, then even if I try to mimic the Quality Level upload functionality, I am not sure what all additional things the exit is doing, while performing Q-level update after UD. Then potentially it would introduce more issues, which is not desirable in these enhancements.

Once we progress ahead, I will keep posted with my analysis for other's reference.

Thanks,

Arijit

john_moore4
Explorer
0 Kudos

Hi Arijit, Did you ever find a solution for this one? I have a similar issue around the QL updating... Thanks John

busyaban7
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi John,

No we didn't had a better solution for this case.

Quality Level update is supported by SAP either at Inspection lot creation or after UD. If we try to achieve it after Result Recording (RR), may be the way could be manual, but we couldn't get any right exit which could help us achieve this requirement programmatically. We checked FM: QDBU_QUALITY_LEVEL_POSTING in our analysis too, but we could not find a solution for using it under any relevant enhancement spots.

Functionally, quality level update seems to be a combination of impacts form Result recording as well as form UD. We believe in case if we could have achieved to do some enhancements and update it with some logic, there could have been again another change to quality level happened after UD, nullifying the impact of the previous change. And in this way we could have introduced some unforeseen inconsistencies in the system, which is really not expected...

So, we kept this setup to be continued as a 'Manual' rather than trying to automate it. User can still change and update the Q-level manually whenever required as demanded by business case.

Thanks,

Arijit

john_moore4
Explorer
0 Kudos

Thanks for the Update Arijit