Storage Location Naming Convention without WM!

Dear all

We are facing serious problem in our Storage Location for Raw Material.

We have 4 types of Raw Material Seating (S), Panel (P), Metal (M), Wood (W). And they are all stored under Storage Location: RWSL.


Although we have visual guideline as to which industrial rack will store the type of Material, it is insufficient. We need a more refined storage location down to which BIN of the rack we will put the Raw Material.

Due to limited time and resource, we cannot have WM implemented right now. Thus, we have come out with 2 alternative to overcome this problem:

Alternative 01:

We will use the Fixed Bin field in Storage Data 02 by putting the Bin number assigned to each Rack.

E.g. For Seating material code:SEAT01, we will maintain the Fixed Bin as R12A01/A02, it means this Seating material SEAT01 will be stored at Rack 12, fixed bin A01 or A02.

Question to Alternative 01: Will it cause problem in GR, GR, Transfer Posting and Stock Count?

Alternative 02:

Instead of going into details to put Fixed Bin field in Storage Data 2, we will abandan the existing Storage Location RMSL by introducing new format for Storage Location

Here is the example of Alternative 02:

For raw materials, we will use 4 digits location numbers, consistent with other Storage locations, the 4 digits storage location will start with u201CR _ _ _u201D to represent each location


R _ _ _ is:

R = Raw materials

2nd digit = Division (S= Seating, P =Panel, W=Wood, M=Metal and W=Wood)

3rd digit = Rack Number (A, B, C, Du2026 and etc.)

4th digit = Rack Zone - each rack will broken down into zone, each rack can possibility have 2 to 3 zone. 1 Zone can be 1 colume of the Rack

An example of a possible location and its meaning will be

RSA1 = Raw materials warehouse, Seating division, Rack A, Zone 1

RPB3 = Raw materials warehouse, Panel Division, Rack B, Zone 3

The challenge of this is that instead of having 1 Raw Material Storage Location like RMSL, we will have a lot more storage locations each for division of Raw material due to the Rack Number we have as well as the Rack Zone.

Question to Alternative 02:

If we use this alternative, will it impact our future implementation of WM? From design wise, is it feasible?

Please advise what is the best approach and the feasible design on it.

Many thanks in advance.

Edited by: Daimos on May 13, 2009 10:15 AM



As storage location is the last organisational level with respect to MM, you can't differentiate it further...

And this overcome by WM, so more differentiation is provided there....

I think its not possible with MM ...Try to use WM only...



0 View this answer in context

Helpful Answer