We want to stop Budget AVC checks for MIGO & MIRO in Live System

[Former Member]

HI Everyone.

We are using Funds Management (BCS) and at the inital stage we are checking the budget at PR, PO, GR & Invoice level.

Now, due to the functional constraints we've decided to remove the Budget AVC checks for GR (MIGO) and IR (MIRO)

Note: At the movement we are not using any activity groups w.r.t tolerance groups, bcoz if we specify the activity groups for only PR & PO, system wont check the budget at GR & IR but, system will post the negative values (FMB_PT01)

So, as a work around, we've defined derivation steps at business transaction level (RMWE & RMRP) by assigning commitment item which is having financial transaction 40 & commitment item type 3, where system wont check the budget.

But, system is not performing the derivation based on this rule in PRD, where with the same config system able to work properly as we desired in DEV client and able to bypass the MIGO & MIRO.

Can anyone, give some suggestions or best way to achieve the said requirement of avoiding the AVC check @ MIGO & MIRO level.

Thanks in Advance.

Raja Sekhar

[iklovski · Accepted solution]

Hi,

Check in FMDERIVE if you set the rule in a way that it overwrites existing value. If it does not help, set a trace on FMDERIVE and see why your rule is not fulfilled.

Regards,

Eli

[Former Member]

HI

Thanks for the Reply.

Yeah, i've checked the FMDERIVE sequence and there is no other rule to overwrite. and moreover, i've even tested MIGO with trace on, where i found that, in the trace GR/IR account (WRX) is not comming

When the post the document, system is taking the Fund Center and commitment item from PO to the GR/IR A/c, due to which Fund Management document is generating.

Why the GR/IR account is not displaying in Trace, and how to overwrite the budget addresses during MIGO & MIRO.

[mar_novalbos]

Hello Raja

Inheriting the FM account assignment from the reference PO at the time of MIGO and MIRO is the normal behaviour so that your commitments will get reduced.

Anyway, please have a look at note [923672|https://service.sap.com/sap/support/notes/923672] and see if enabling the flags in FM01X table can help you to achieve the results you expect.

I nevertheless believe that you could customize your tolerance profiles in a way that, depending on the activity group, you raise only informational messages from AVC.

Please, let us know your feedback

Kind regards

Mar

[Former Member]

Dear Mar,

Thx

Yeah, we already activated the flags in FM01X for both

FLG_FMDERIVE_FORCE

FLG_PO_PROTECT

in DEV but not in PRD

Does this required to be maintained or not

If required, wht would be the tcode for the same.

Thanks in Advance

[mar_novalbos]

Hi

There is no standard t-code for maintaining FM01X so far.

Please test this in your DEV system: enable flag FLG_FMDERIVE_FORCE only, and then make all your tests with this flag only.

let us know your results

kind regards

Mar

Also: can you please share with us the reasons why working with different activity groups in your tolerance profile does not meet your needs?

thanks!

[Former Member]

Dear Mar,

Actually, in DEV we've already flagged the both predevelopments, is that the reason, FMDERIVE is working in DEV...? for all test cases.

I've checked the table values of FM01X in PRD, which is blank.

By implementing the note, will the value come in this table in PRD.Client..?

[mar_novalbos]

Hi Raja

No, the values in FM01X do not come by note implementation but via manual maintenance by customers.

and yes, if you don't have FLG_FMDERIVE_FORCE in PRD, then the FMDERIVE may not have any effect in MIGO / MIRO

I nevertheless recommend you to read the note carefully and not activate this flag if you don't understand the consequences. Please test everything carefully....

My understanding so far is that you do not want to have AVC in MIRO and MIGO. However, with FLG_FMDERIVE_FORCE, you will be deriving a different account assigment at the time of posting the GR's and IR's. That may lead to have open commitments in your existing PO's. just double-check and make sure that it's the desired result

good luck!

Mar

[Former Member]

Dear Mar,

I've maintained the Pre-development parameters in PRD and it is working fine as per my Derivation rule.

Can you tell me is there is similar kind of parameter, for service entry sheet also for the same purpose.

i've tried by maintaining parameter FLG_SES_OVERWRITE in FM01X, due to which in ML81N system taking the fund center as per the derivation, but when i am creating PO for services, system is not able to derive the fund center,

where as previously, before maintaining the above parameter, system use to derive the fund center based on cost center, which is not working after this maintainance.

Any suggestions on this.

Thanks for your support

Raja Talluri

[mar_novalbos]

Hi Raja

I am not 100% sure about that, maybe some note/s are missing. can you let me know your EA-PS package level?

I will first try to find notes for you

Kind regards

Mar

[Former Member]

Dear Mar,

After maintainance of flag for service entry sheet, i've change the sequence of derivation and now it is working fine as per the requirement.

Thanks Alot for your Support. (Assigned the points too)