SPL NAME2 field removed form assign address check config but still NAME2 field is considered in SPL check

[former_member927389]

Hi Friends,

We have a NAME1,NAME2 and Country in SPL assign SPL address check .Requirement was to remove NAME2 and keep NAME1 and Country.

NAME2 have been removed but still while SPL checking we find NAME2 is considered in this.

Can you please let us know if we require only to delete NAME2 from  "Sanctioned Party List Screening" Service>Define Control Procedure for Address Comparison>assign address check or do we need to perform any further activity ,code change or configuration change ,so that in SPL check only NAME1 and Country is considered.

Thanks in Advance

Amit

[Former Member]

Amit,

We had a similar problem for some of our other clients.

You might want to configuring the system for searching the "SPL record" within the BP names.

This will ensure that the block takes place when the words from SPL record are found within the BP NAME1 field itself.

P.S : You can check the impact to the overall hit rates with this change which again will be dependent on he BP name demographics.

[former_member927389]

Hi Jasmit ,

Thanks for the reply ,can you please let us know the details of the configuration that you had performed when you faced this type of issue.

Thanks & Regards

Amit

[Former Member]

Hello Amit,

N1 object in generation of comp indexes for partners do not split NAME1,2,3,4. All of ADRC-NAME* are considerred. In case you would like to kick out NAME2 you would need to enhance the code for BP index generation.

As we dont know the background of your requirement I can not help more. Maybe you can explain why you want to do this.

Maye you dont want to transfer NAME2 to GTS already, in that case you need to update BadI or user exit.

Kind regards,

Gabriel.

[former_member927389]

Thanks Gabriel for your quick response ,

We had NAME1 ,NAME2 and Country field assigned for SPL check ,

SInce we found for some customer which are 100% match with SPL list when only NAME1 and Country was maintained  was having SPL block but when we maintained some further address in its NAME2 field it was not getting block as the match % has reduced.

This was a concern with Compliance team,so we thought of considering NAME1 and Country field for SPL check .

So we thought of removing NAME2 field from assigned for SPL checking..

We initially thought removing the field NAME2 from assigned field will do, but on testing the scenario we found that issue still persist.

So you suggest that for activating this we need to have some code change.Can you please specify the Program /BADI/USER EXIT  name,

Your help will be highly appreciated.

Thanks and Regards

Amit

[Former Member]

Hello Amit,

thank you for explanation.

Lets take it one by one:

1. Removing NAME2 from SPL control does not consider what is in BP, but only in SPL. So removal of NAME2 is not a help in this case.

2. To be fair I would recommend not to remofe NAME2 from SPL screening. (Of course depends on your master data), instead of this I would optimize your screening logic (percentages, basis for comparison etc.)

--> In case you would anyway want to go for removal of NAME2 you would need to enhance generation of indexes for BP. Have a look at FM /SAPSLL/SPL_STERMS_SPLITSTRING - Incl /SAPSLL/LSPL_STERMS_INTACTF01. Or just in the report /SAPSLL/SPL_CREATE_SEARCHTADRC delete already filled NAME2 strings. Be aware that it might be used in other functions so hit where used before.

--> Or you can filter out NAME2 already in R/3 in the user exit before its transferred to GTS

Again I would rather go for optimization other than coding.

Cheers,

Gabriel.

[Former Member]

Hi Amit,

I agree with Gabriel. Removing Name2 from checks or index generation may lead to not blocking document/partners which has denial party names in that section.

To avoid this case often, you can either streamline the Business process in maintaining address or may be need to revisit the config. in terms of match %.

Thanks

Dhilipan

[former_member927389]

Hi Dhilipan ,

When you are referring to make change in percentage match can you please help me understand this.