SAP for Public Sector Discussions
Foster conversations about citizen engagement, resource optimization, and service delivery improvements in the public sector using SAP.
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

FM-GM Derive issues with new asset class on PR

Former Member
0 Kudos

We recently created a new asset class for low value controlled equipment. When creating MM purchase requistion account assignment, the internal order and cost center are not derived from asset shell like our other asset classes. FM & GM derive do not have condition restrictions by asset class on rules that derive this information. Did I miss something when creating the new asset class? Is there an integration in MM that needs to be set up? Some material groups are assigned asset classes in MM for defaults, but none are set up for LVA class. We have to change the default to the new class when creating shell in the PR.

I have compared the LVA class set up to our other asset classes and it appears to be identical with the various settings and multiple screens required for asset classes.

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Former Member
0 Kudos

Why don't you turn on the FMDERIVE trace when performing the transaction? That is the easiest way to diagnose the error.

View solution in original post

4 REPLIES 4

Former Member
0 Kudos

Why don't you turn on the FMDERIVE trace when performing the transaction? That is the easiest way to diagnose the error.

0 Kudos

Yes I have been using the trace feature on both FMDERIVE and GMDERIVE. The GMDERIVE function module set up to read asset master record to derive the internal order number does not fulfill for the two new asset classes, but fulfills on all the previously established asset classes. Required integration with gant and order as account assignment elements are in place and screen layouts for new classes includes grant and order for new classes.

0 Kudos

You'll need to analyse trace log: on the trace screen click on 'display log' > click on the printer icon > expend ALL the highlithted rules and try to analyze them by looking at the source and target fields.

0 Kudos

This turned out to be a Cost Element master data validity date issue. We corrected by extending the valid to dates for the new Cost Elements associated with the new GL accounts.