cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Unable to run ownership manager

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Team,

While am trying to set matrix and calculate ownership manager ,system is throwing below error.

Please see attached error document.

Regards,

Prasanna

Accepted Solutions (0)

Answers (2)

Answers (2)

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi

Please see image.

former_member225135
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi Prasanta,

Do you want the system to derive the entity methods, if no, select only 3rd option.

and if yes, make sure that the Methods table (in Business rules) have share range field with proper POWN/PCTRL.

You are getting this error because system is not able to find the suitable methods from your Methods table.

Method-based Multipliers and Consolidation Methods - SAP Business Planning and Consolidation, versio...

Regards,

Rahul

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Rahul,

Thank you for quick answer. We are expecting system would derive the entity methods. We checked all the rules and method and matrix but we are not finding any mismatch. That is why we are worry. hence this issue is very high priority.

Regards

Prasanta

former_member225135
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi,

Can you share the Methods details and the base ownership data?

Regards,

Rahul

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi

Plz see  beloww Method details and base ownership 100%.

former_member225135
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi,


What i can see is that there is conflict in share range for method 20 & 29. Try to change the share range.

One more test, maintain share range for every method which you have used except holding company.

Regards,

Rahul

harsha_jalakam
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi Prashanta,

Before you run ownership manager for calculation, Share and control data must be entered for all entities(Intco menmebers) with its holding member with without any scope (group) specification (i.e.: S_NONE or G_NONE).

Please check the below doc. for reference.

http://sapassets.edgesuite.net/sapcom/docs/2015/08/5c358148-557c-0010-82c7-eda71af511fa.pdf

Regards,

Harsha

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Rahul,

You are correct, Method 29 & 28 is issue, while am using this method system throwing error.

same way if i use 29&28 method Type Global & not maintain share range and % consolidation given 100 then system able to do cal calculate. But i want above screen. should be maintain.

Regards,

Prasanta

former_member225135
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi Prasanta,

Anyways, there will be different share range for this methods.

You can not keep the share range empty except for holding company.

Try to maintain the share range (which looks complete for system to derive the methods), as there is conflict in share range.

Regards,

Rahul

Former Member
0 Kudos

HI

Am unable to come out this issue.Even i tried many way.For me now, there is no luck supporting.

Regards

Prashant

former_member225135
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi,

Can you share the updated Method table?

Regards,

Rahul

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Rahul,

Actually morning itself i shared method and this method was working and picking all method code and method type perfectly.

This method we want to use.

Regards,

Prasanta

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi rahul,

Actually same method working in PRD but when am trying to test QA its not accepting and system throwing error.

Regards,

Prasanta

former_member225135
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi Prasnta,

is BW SP level for both QA and prod is same. or any upgrade activity performed?

There should not a problem if the functionality has been tested in production .

Regards,

Rahul

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi rahul,

Actually our client did not use QA in Past, For testing purpose we copied PRD from QA through Tr code- UJJR . So we are testing now in QA. Am not sure whether PRD BW copied or not. But i think it also copied while am using transaction code.Not sure for that its behavior change in system or not.

Regards,

Prasanta

former_member225135
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi Prasanta,

System will cause some inconsistency if the SP level, Kernel level of both system are different.

Can you ask basis team to compare both landscape.

What is SP of prd & QA system.

Regards,

Rahul

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Rahul,

As i told you earlier, we just did PRD replicate as QA. Its means it should everything like as production. Hence its landscape also. Can you plz bit explain ( SP level, Kernel level of both system are different.)

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Rahul,

I found, while am using this below method,  am getting error and am not sure this share range, where its link and how its pick. But as per PRD config, we wont change this 28 method.

Plz advise.

former_member225135
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi Prasanta,

I have already mentioned that there is some conflict in the share range of the methods which are using and due to this, system is throwing error. Even finding it hard to understand that same logic is working fine in production.

Can you take a dump of previous years ownership data and check whether the mentioned method have been used or not. Also check whether there are any elimination and adjustment rules configured for "L" type entity and if not, then you can surely change the share range. (since there is no configuration to consolidate the leaving entity)

Regards,

Rahul

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Rahul,

Still we are working in this requirement. Here what we did, we just put all 100% & just did save .We did not calculate the ownership manager but system consolidating perfectly. Could not understand this logic behind. Could you please put on light on this.

Regards-

Prasanta

former_member225135
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

You mean to say that putting 100% in share range gives you proper result ?

Regards,

Rahul

former_member225135
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Please have a look at the attached link.

This document explains how share range and applicable percent consolidation is used in matrix consolidation scenario

Try to build the same case and check whether it is working or not.

Regards,

Rahul

former_member225135
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Attachment?

Regards,

Rahul