cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Orders from different sales org. -> single delivery

maciej_domagaa
Contributor
0 Kudos

Hello

Does anyone know if it is possible to combine sales orders, related to different sales organizations, into a single delivery document ?

The documentation on combining sales orders says that:

The orders or the order items and schedule lines must have identical shipping criteria. This includes the following data:

- Shipping point

- Ship-to party

- Incoterms

- Sales organization

There's also a field VKORG (sales organization) in the header of the delivery document (LIKP table), so it suggests that a delivery document cannot be related to more than one sales organization.

But on the other hand the functionality that checks if sales orders belong to the same sales org. (during delivery creation) is not hard-coded. It is contained in the copy-control procedures (VOFM). So this might suggest that we can manipulate it. (For example we have standard requirement procedure 51 that contains a condition which allows combining orders only if the sales org. of the orders are the same. Also, the field LIKP-VKORG is populated by means of the copy-control procedures).

So my question is: Is it really necessary to have the field "sales organization" in the delivery header (LIKP-VKORG) filled with value copied from the sales order ?

If I changed the copy-control in the way that the system would not check the "sales organization" of orders being copied into delivery during delivery creation, and my copy-control would fill LIKP-VKORG with initial value (empty) instead of copying it from the order - would this be OK or would it rather cause errors in further processing of the delivery ? (I mean while: goods issue, billing, transportation).

My goal is to have a single delivery document, combining sales orders from two sales organizations - each of them related to separate company code - so that the billing of the delivery document results in creating two invoices - each invoice related to the corresponding company code.

regards

Accepted Solutions (0)

Answers (3)

Answers (3)

Former Member
0 Kudos

Good day

Can anyone explain the COGS impact to me? The material document COGS posting will be based on material/plant rather than Sales Organisation?

Has anyone been able to accomplish this before? I.e. create a single delivery for multiple Sales Orders belonging to different sales organisations?

Please advise.

former_member183879
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi Maciej,

Ideally speaking, this process should not be enabled at all. As you have pointed out, it is technically possible through copy control routines and for that matter everything is possible in technology. But looking into the business scenarios and their implications in the system, it should not be done.

If there is a need for delivering different orders using one delivery (which means that there are sold to parties and ship to parties involved in dealing with multiple sales organisations) you really have to look at the organisational structure, master data etc to redefine the same. This process actually demands a relook into the org structure and master data than tweaking in the process to enable an incorrect process.

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Maciej,

After going thru your detailed requirement and the analysis you did - you have the work around how to manipulate the copy control to meet your goal.

You might want to check how your current reports look like ... for example if you have a rep to pull deliveries by sales org, what would happen ( since you are going to have only one sales org at a time ). Whats the criteria you are going to use to populate preferred sales org on LIKP . Thsi has to be taken care when you develop any reports.

As such its not a SAP standard way combing deliveries of 2 comp codes. Big questoin would be how the COGS is taken care off- how the MM-FI account determination takes place. This is at comp code level.

So I dont think its a good option to combine delvieries of 2 comp codes into one. Might encourage you look for an other aternative.

Regards

Sadhu Kishore