FM Availability Control Inconsistencies

[analistia16]

Hi Experts,

Kindly need your advise related to FM Availability Control Inconsistencies.

So right now I am on a testing phase of an implementation project, and just recently we have discovered that FM availability control inconsistencies are likely to appear. Hence, I become regularly monitor inconsistencies via t-code FMAVCDIFF and run t-code FMAVCREINIT to fix the inconsistencies.

My question is, what is likely to cause this issue? I mean if this happen to often, there must be some root causes that we can take preventive actions against.  For example to avoid certain transactions running together with another or to apply SAP notes or setup additional configuration?

Need your advices as these things are disturbing our testing process and will certainly be a problem in the future production system.

Many thanks,

-Analistia

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Nalistia

Hi FM AVC Inconsistencies may not come frequently. Suppose if we make any changes in running system for example Budget strcture changes, AVC control setting changes, Tolerance profile changes, AVC filter setting changes, Budget distribution chagnes, Account assignment changes, New customized ledger creation etc., then, there is a chance to get availabiltiy control inconsistencies. For removing the inconsistencies in AVC sap suggested few transaction codes i.e., FMAVCREINIT,FMBV, FM9P etc.,

These AVC inconsistences may get in other module also like  PS AVC inconsitencies, FI module etc.,

I believe this is not an issue. Have you activate and deactivating AVC settings frequently? Do you make any changes in testing time?

Regards

Rao

[iklovski]

Hi,

Please, consult note Note 725266 - Conditions requiring a re-initialization of AVC ledgers

Regards,

Eli

[analistia16]

Thanks Rao and Eli for your responses,

I have checked notes 725266, and will continue investigate based on explaination in the notes.

So far we are suspecting that the inconsistencies are related with heavy use of Earmarked Funds.

Currently we are using Earmarked Funds (Fund Commitment) to book budget before the real commitment/ actual transactions are posted, for example: 

1. To book budget for shopping cart (from SAP SRM) before the real purchase order created
2. To book budget for HR travel request with assignment to WBS/ Internal Order before the actual settlement is posted.

Before the real commitment/ actual is posted, earmarked fund will be marked as completed using enhancement. What happening now is, after the earmarked fund is completed, the real commitment generated from Purchase Order is not correctly accumulated in FM, thus when displaying report in FMAVCR01, consumed amount displayed in the header and the detail might be different.

Any experience in using EF before? Is there any FM/ generation program needs to be run after completing an earmarked fund?

Appreciate your responses,

Regards,

Analistia

[iklovski]

Hi,

Using EMF should not be an execuse for malfunction of the system. What SAP release are you in? If you work with SRM, there are some notes that correct behaviour of commitments, even in recent releases.

Regards,

Eli

[analistia16]

Hi Eli,

We are working in SAP ECC 6.0, release 09.07.0005

Finally we have found the root cause of the problem. It is related to the function module we were using for completing the earmarked funds.

Previously we were using function module "FMFR_CHANGE_COMPLETION_FLAG" in our enhancement to mark Earmarked Funds document as completed. After performing some testing and simulation, we figured that inconsistencies occured after this function module was executed, such as: FM AVC inconsistency and negative budget commitments in WBS (we also use EF to temporarily commit budget from WBS)

Then we tried to use another function module "FMFR_CHANGE_FROM_DATA" to update the completion flag of EF doc manually. And then no inconsistencies were caused after that.

Honestly i haven't completely understood how function module for completion flag could cause such problems, possibly it has a bug or missing process.

However the problem has finally been solved. Thanks for your guidances

Regards,

Analistia