cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Batch managed - UD - source inspection

Former Member
0 Kudos

Dear Friends,

I need help regarding the following issue.

I have a batch managed material for which I am doing source inspection. Batch is manually entered. For the source inspection lot, system does not let me take the usage decision until and unless I input the batch. Message no. QV044. When I try to enter a new batch here, system then gives me a message 'Batch does not exist M7042'.

Ideally I want to be able to take the usage decision without assigning the batch in source inspection lot. We will be assigning batch when the material enters via GR.

I have checked the forum and did come across a similar requirement but nobody seems to have answered it. Could someone please help ?

Thanks for your time.

Sanila

Accepted Solutions (0)

Answers (2)

Answers (2)

former_member42743
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Please review this help file:

http://help.sap.com/saphelp_46c/helpdata/en/2d/351115448c11d189420000e829fbbd/content.htm

You need to run the job that creates the source inspections with the indicator "Inspect without batch" ticked on.  There are then some settings and rules explaining what happens at actual GR and if a new inspection lot is created.

FF

Former Member
0 Kudos

Dear FF,

Thanks for ur reply. Sorry couldn't reply earlier.

Will check what you have said...and get back.

Sanila

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi FF,

I am running the job with the "Inspect without batch" ticked on.

The inspection lot which is created requires a batch record to be entered before UD is done.  The SAP help documents that if the PO carries the vendor batch then this is reflected in insp lot otherwise not. All is fine till here.

Now I am expecting the system to permit me to enter a vendor batch in the Insp lot...but I am not allowed to do so. I have to enter a batch record that exists in my stock (not vendor batch).


So before I do a source inspection - I do MSC1N and create a batch record  say 'source insp' - then assign this to my inspection lot - and proceed. This batch does not appear when I do GR. I manually assign another batch there.

I do not understand the logic. I would want the system to let me enter a vendor batch in Insp lot just as I would enter one in the PO. If you have the time, could you please let me know why SAP has designed it this the way.


(Ooops..pretty long note huh...)

Sanila

former_member42743
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Sorry for not getting back sooner.  Can't always get here on a regular basis.

From SAP help:

"If there is an entry for the vendor batch field and the batch field in the goods receipt document, the system also checks whether the vendor batch is contained in the source inspection lot and if it is consistent."

Are they entering the vendor batch on the delivery document when they receive it?  They should be doing this.

Then in the inspection lot you also enter the vendor batch.  You should only need to enter either the vendor batch or an internal batch number.  Not both.  You should be able to do the UD.

That should be it.   You wouldn't normally need to go back to enter in the internal batch number to the lot because it should have the vendor batch number in it and your internal batch number should have the same vendor batch number in it from when they do the GR.

Keep in mind, SAP is expecting that normally the source inspection lot is completed and UD'd prior to the GR at the receivng dock.

FF

Former Member
0 Kudos

HI

Check note 170081 - Possible to make UD without batch assignment.

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Sandeep,

Thanks for your reply.

But I think this note is already implemented and therefore I get the QV044 error ryt ? I don't want to enter the batch in the source inspection lot alone. All other lots batch is already entered.

Any other suggestions ?

Regards,

Sanila

Former Member
0 Kudos

HI

Ya rite this error QV044.

use this 302854 :Error message QV044 when making UD.

Former Member
0 Kudos

Sandeep,

Checked the note 302854 but as I am on 6.0 I think this note too would already be in place. However I think the note 146945 might solve my problem.

Thanks again.

Sanila