Changed Agreements Check Box in VBOF

[Former Member]

Dear All,

Can someone help me to understand the Usage of Check Box "Changed Agreements" at the bottom of the VBOF Transaction.

I read the documentation and was not able to get the exact meaning of what happens when we Tick or Untick the Check Box "Changed Agreements" in VBOF while running retrospective Rebates.

The issue we have is that in Our Production System when the Changed Agreements Check Box is checked then VBOF does not shows up any Billing Documents however when we uncheck the Check Box then documents are shown.

In Our Development System same documents are shown in both the cases.

Hence can someone explain by giving a example as to what is the difference when we Check or Uncheck the Changed Agreements Check Box. What is the Usage od the same?

Regards,

Madhukar

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hello madhukar,

Please check the following information available in the Note 105681 regarding the parameter "Changed agreements"

Normally, you should set this parameter, since an improved runtime is

achieved with a restriction to changed agreements.

You should only deactivate the parameter if changes which are relevant

for rebate occurred outside rebate agreement maintenance. These are, for

example:

o Relevance for rebate

- Sales organization

- Payer

- Document types

o Pricing procedure

- Add/delete rebate condition types

- Formulas/requirements for rebate condition types

- Reference step of a volume rebate condition type

o Access sequences

- Add/change/delete accesses

- Requirements

- Exclusive indicator

o Condition type

- Condition exclusion indicator

o Condition exclusion groups for rebate conditions

If parameter 'Changed agreements' is not set, in this case you should

attempt to restrict the agreements manually as much as possible.

Also consider that for the above changes you may have to set up the

rebate index (VBOX) again, no matter if you use the new rebate procedure

or not. Thus, the previous process has not been changed concerning this

point.

Regards,

Raghavendra