TCode FLBPC1: Message "No BP could be created for vendor ....."

[Former Member]

Hello,

We have the master data synchronization active for creation of BP from vendor/customer using TCodes FLBPC1 / FLBPD1. This was working fine too. Now all of a sudden from today when we are trying to use FLBPC1, the system gives a message "no business partner could be created for vendor...".

Upon expanding the note we found that the procedure suggested is to open PPO and check the error message. We have the PPO active. Can someone please give me the exact steps to be followed to open the PPO and analyze the error?

To be on the safer side I have once again checked the configurations mentioned in SAP Note 954816 and 956054 and have found that all configs are in place.

I have also observed that in case where there is a configuration issue involved, the message would appear in red (ie an error message). But now the message is appearing in green (ie like an ordinary message) and therefore the configurations must have been properly maintained.

Please help.

Regards,

Suvarghya Dutta

Edited by: Suvarghya Dutta on Apr 28, 2009 10:38 PM

[Former Member]

Hello,

In addition to what I have mentioned, further investigations revealed the following. Very recently we have added a new field to the vendor master data. It is the Industry field. This field has been made mandatory in the vendor master data.

Then I looked into the master data synch - customer/vendor integration - BP setting - settings for vendor integratn - field assgnmnt for vndr integrtn - assign attributes - assign industries.

Here I found that there has been an entry created and the radio button under the colm Standard System has been activated. When I selected this entry and clicked on Define Outgoing Industry Mapping as well as Define Incoming Industry Mapping, there were NO entries found there.

Could this be the possible source of the failure of FLBPC1 transaction? If yes, can someone please tell me what should the next steps be?

regards,

Suvarghya Dutta

[Former Member]

Hello,

I opened the synchronization cockpit and found that there were two kinds of errors reported there. The first one is, as I suspected, the non maintenance of the industry field in BP. After I maintained them many of the vendors for whom BP could not be created earlier, could now get created.

The second type of error that was reported from the Synch cockpit is that Form of address 4 not designated for organizations.

Can someone please tell me what this message means and where to check for the settings related to this message?

Regards,

Suvarghya Dutta

[Former Member]

Hi Suvarghya,

The form of address referred to here is the title - such as Mr., Ms. Company, etc.

Possibly, you are trying to synchronise the vendor having an incompataible title into a BP.

You can maintain the address forms for the BP in view V_TSAD2 and V_TSAD3.

Just ensure that the form of addres '4' is manitaned in these views such that it is valid for an organization.

This will stop the errors.

Hope this helps you.

Best Regards,

Rishu.

[Former Member]

Hello,

Thanks. What I would like to understand is the following.

We already have a vendor whose name starts with Mrs and therefore confirms the form of address 4. When we are trying to create a BP from it directly using the tcode FLBPC1, why is it that the system is creating a BP of category Organization ? I think the system should have created a BP of the category Person, isnt it? So, where it has been mapped that for a vendor of this type should be assigned a category of Organization when BP will be created? or for that matter, where has the mapping maintained to link a specific type of vendor to a specific category of BP? How does the system determine which category of business partner (ie person, organization, group) to use when we create a BP from a vendor?

regards,

Suvarghya Dutta

[Former Member]

Hi Suvarghya,

Ok, this makes the scenario clear- you are trying to maintain a 'person' vendor and want it to synch into a 'person' BP. However, this is not allowed in the standard.

Customers/Vendors can only be created as organizations. This is the default type.Hence if you are creating a vendor, you cannot choose titles such as Mr, Ms. It will result in the mapping error.

If you need a vendor with title as Mr./ Ms., you would need to create a person BP, and have the vendor created from the BP.

This is as per design.

If you are willing to change the design, you can override the mapping by creating an implementation of the BADI CVI_CUSTOM_MAPPER with code similar to this-.

IF

i_customer-central_data-address-postal-data-title = 0004 or

i_customer-central_data-address-postal-data-title = 0002.

ls_partners-CENTRAL_DATA-COMMON-DATA-BP_CENTRALDATA-TITLE_KEY =

i_customer-central_data-address-postal-data-title.

ls_partners-central_data-common-data-bp_control-category = 1.

Endif.

Please note the values of

i_customer-central_data-address-postal-data-title and

ls_partners-CENTRAL_DATA-COMMON-DATA-BP_CENTRALDATA-TITLE_KEY

as per your settings in the database.

This would override the category and the title mapped to the BP from

customer. You could write similar code for the vendor.

This should solve your problem.

Cheers,

Rishu.

[Former Member]

Hello Rishu,

First, many thanks for the kind patience to deal so extensively with the subject.

To make sure that I have made my requirement clear, let me state:

1. Presently there are several vendors in the system who uses the forms of address like Mr/Mrs/Dr/Miss/Company/Ms etc. ( Incidentally, is it possible to create a vendor as 'person' or 'organization' as such ?)

2. However for ALL these vendors the system sends a message that BP cannot be created.

3. Synchronization cockpit gives the message that all these 'forms of address are not designated for organization'.

4. I am not looking forward to create a BP of any specific category of my choice.

5. All I am trying to do is to create a BP for the existing vendors in the system.

And now to make sure that I have understood what you are trying to say, let me reiterate:

1. Vendors that presently have the form of address Mr/Mrs/Dr/Ms/Miss etc are NOT allowed by standard SAP to be automatically created into BP using the T Code FLBPC1.

2. We must EITHER make a change in the vendor address to remove such forms as Mr/Mrs etc OR a code change in order create the BP from the existing form of vendors.

3. In future all vendors should be created without the form of address Mr/Mrs/Ms etc.

4. In the event the client wants to create a vendor with the form of address Mr/Mrs/Ms etc then they should do it in the reverse fashion...ie first create the BP of category 'person' and then create the vendor from the BP.

ALTERNATIVELY this is what I found from exploring the system;

I went to the following node: IMG - RE-FX - BP - General settings for BP - BP - Basic settings - Forms of address - Maintain forms of address.

What I found is that in case I activate the tick for the colm 'organization' for the forms of address which are now giving error, I can then create them as BP successfully using the FLBPC1. Will that be a good option to activate the tick here?

Request you to kindly let me know if my understanding has been right.

Kind regards,

Suvarghya Dutta

[Former Member]

Hi Suvarghya,

Yes, your understanding has been perfect !

I'll address the issues in order -

1. Its not possible to create person or organization vendors - its just that the title makes it pretty apparent as to what category the vendor might be. The category concept comes into play only when you want to synch the vendor to a BP.

Responding to your points -

Vendors that presently have the form of address Mr/Mrs/Dr/Ms/Miss etc are NOT allowed by standard SAP to be automatically created into BP using the T Code FLBPC1.

Yes, that's right. Title Mr/ Ms is not allowed for a vendor if CVI is active. The mapping modules will throw the error.

We must EITHER make a change in the vendor address to remove such forms as Mr/Mrs etc OR a code change in order create the BP from the existing form of vendors.

Right again. The code change is easy. Just implement the BADI i mentioned earlier. Most SAP customers use this approach.

In future all vendors should be created without the form of address Mr/Mrs/Ms etc.

Not really. If you want a vendor to have title Mr/ Ms, just create the BP, and let the BP get created into a vendor. But if you want the vendor to be created first, then Mr/Ms is not allowed (unless you have the code modification to support it) - which is exactly what you have mentioned in your 4th point !!

What I found is that in case I activate the tick for the colm 'organization' for the forms of address which are now giving error, I can then create them as BP successfully using the FLBPC1. Will that be a good option to activate the tick here?

What this wil do is - it prevents the error, that's all. It will end up synching the vendor with title Mr/MS, into a BP with title Mr/ Ms, but the BP will be of type Organization !

In effect, you are allowing users to create an organization with title Mr/Ms. This could be confusing for some users - and also might be functioanlly misleading.

I hope this answers your queries. Do let me know for any clarifications.

Cheers,

Rishu.

[Former Member]

Hello Rishu,

Many thanks for the kind and patience explanation. Really thankful to you. We activated a different BADi which I found in the following node and which my ABAPer told will suppress the Mr/Mrs etc at the time when it will create the BP for it.

IMG - Cross appln components - Master data synch - Cust/Vndr integratn - BP settings - BADi - Data assgnmnt of form of address from cust/vndr to BP.

After we have activated that BADi there has been no further trouble reported. Is this the same BADi which you suggested?

Regards,

Suvarghya Dutta

[Former Member]

Hi Suvarghya,

Sure, you're most welcome !

I was referrign to another BADI - CV_CUSTOM_MAPPEr, where you could write code to override whatever standard was trying to do.. but the solution you've mentioned i quite good too !

I believe you are referring to badi CVI_MAP_TITLE. It does seem apt for this scenraio, so yes - that should solve the problem too !

Regards,

Rishu.

[Former Member]

Hello Rishu,

Many thanks. I am closing this discussion here for the time being.

Regards,

Suvarghya Dutta