How to avoid the pop up 'Valuate the non-valuated QM Characteristics Manually?' during UD ?

[former_member221124]

Hello Friends

During result recording if the user leaves any characteristic (The MIC which is linked with a Class Characteristic ) blank , then during UD and stock posting system gives a pop-up message to Valuate Characteristic with an option to click Yes/No.

* Pop-up screen shot attached.

I have made a BDC program for UD and Stock posting.For the above pop-up message, the program stops there.

Therefore, my requirement is to avoid the above pop-up. Is there any such note available or we can avoid this through configuration.

Regards

DD QM

[busyaban7]

Hi,

In your material master QM view, for the activated inspection type, there is a checkbox "Check Chars" added, which forces the system to check and record results all MIC's. You can try to do the below things -

a) Always close the results to MIC system status "5" for all 'Required MIC'. In case you have recorded results for non-required/optional MIC's then you should close the values for those records too. This is the most standard way of fixing this masterdata driven issue.

b) Else, you can try to uncheck the checkbox "Check Chars" in inspection type added in your material Master QM View [QMAT-MER]. Only after that, run the BDC.

c) Instead or running a BDC to do UD, please can you use standard transactions QA11/QA16 to be running in background and check if there is any improvement.

Thanks,

Arijit

[former_member221124]

Hi Arijit

Thanks for your reply.

Actually, it is well known that we have to close the characteristic (Status-5) as a disciplined user.

In my case, the issue is user would do result in recording and UD in two separate transactions run by BDC. As per regular practice, they must do the Result recording part before doing UD. But in few cases, they may need to avoid Result recording , and at that time, such issue comes.

Also, I cannot record the Pop-up screen part in SHDB as this will not come in regular.

I just want to avoid that pop-up screen .

Also, I have unchecked that field against inspection type in QM View Material Master. But after this system would not allow us to do result recording with the message ' Characteristic results cannot be recorded for inspection lot XXXXXXXXXXX' .

Regards

DD QM

Message was edited by: DD QM

[busyaban7]

Hi,

The initial question was related to UD and so please confirm, if this proposed change is solving your UD - popup or not. I believe, with this proposed ways of working, you can do the UD successfully.

In case if users are recording inspection results, they should record for all MIC's. Else this problem can't really be avoided at UD. The only choice you have here is - For example, your inspection lot has 4 MIC to record result, but User recorded results only for 3 MIC and skipped recording results for the 4th MIC. Then once the results are recorded partially, you can UNCHECK this 'Check Char' field and only then do the UD. Till the time RR is done, do not change this checkbox, else you will get this issue at RR side, which can't really be avoided due to this user's data maintenance issue. 

When business is using BDC, though it gives a bit more flexibility to automate things quickly for proven conditions for shorter durations, but BDC's are always venerable because -

i) BDC can't always handle additional popup's which are not tested before.

ii) Upgrade issues where screen sequence are getting changed,

iii) Execution success message getting changed to popup message post upgrade, etc

...thus making BDC's as cost intensive for maintenance over a long period of time. The better choice should have been using background program or using QA11/QA16 to do this work.

Hence I believe there couldn't be any perfect solutions to this case.

Thanks,

Arijit

[former_member221124]

Thanks, Arijit.

If it is so , let me open the issue for another couple of days.

If no solution available I will close the thread.

Regards

DD

[busyaban7]

Hi,

As I said, there is no perfect solution to handle process anomalies by users. But there can be some work around which I proposed, and it will only work if used in the prescribed way.

Please do not forget to close this thread!!

Thanks,

Arijit