cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Tolerance in GR

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi all!

When entering spro> Supplier Relationship Management>Cross-Application

Basic Settings> Set Tolerance Checks, we define tolerance 0% for GR.

We have an extended classic scenario, where the confirmation is done in

SRM and then GR is replicated to R3. After configuring this point,there

is no validation of the tolerance limits in SRM.

Could you please let us know how to solve this issue for being capable

to check the GR tolerance when we confirm a GR?

Thanks a lot and regards,

Ana

Steps for the Reconstruction

Client 010 in EBP: spro> Supplier Relationship Management>Cross-

Application Basic Settings> Set Tolerance Checks

Confirm goods in SRM.

Accepted Solutions (1)

Accepted Solutions (1)

Ramki
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi

I hope you have setup the tolerance checks as per the IMG documentation.

have you done the following ?

1)Created a tolerance group.

2) Then defined tolerance keys for this tolerance group.

3) Assigned the above tolerance group to your user in PPOMA_BBP attribute TOG

Best regards

Ramki

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi,

I will go with Ramakrishna points; just to give more clarity I am adding my view points

1) Create a tolerance group in SPRO.

2) For that group assign the tolerance keys like price variance, quantity variance etc..

3) Assign the tolerance group to user (who does GR) in PPOMA_BBP in attributes tab. For attribute TOG to the tolerance group you created.

4) Preferably maintain same tolerance limits both in your R3 and SRM.

For more consistency

Hope it will help.

Thanks & Best Regards

Girish

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Girisha,

We've been trying your solution, but, when we do a confirmation in SRM, the limits doesn't work. We are not able to confirmate more items than we should receive, but, we can confirmate less. Whatever we define for the limits, the system always has the upper limit 0% and no lower limit.

We've been searching in R3, but we can only find limits for prices, not for quantity.

Could you please, specify where to define these limits in R3?

In SRM we've defined limits for CF and PM, but no one is working. Is it mandatory to define the limits in R3? Or they should work if we only define them in SRM?

Thanks for your help,

Ana

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi,

Till SRM 5.0, The synchronization between SRM tolerance group and R3 tolerance group is not exists.

The system always give priority to SRM tolerance, if you are doing GR in SRM.

That to , it take Vendor Tolerance group value on priority, if vendor is not assigned with any tolerance value. Then it validates with GR person tolerance group , who does GR in SRM.

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi,

This is for Invioce management system in SRM,

I hope same tolerance structure/methodology exits for GR in SRM.

This just for your information,

Note that the invoice is checked in accordance with the vendor tolerance limits in the case of the following exceptions: If these are exceeded, an error message is output.

· Price variance

This exception is triggered if you try to post an invoice that contains price variance that exceeds the tolerance limit. In the settings, you can define whether a notification e-mail is automatically sent in the case of a price variance, and to whom this e-mail is sent. You can stipulate that the invoice is posted automatically if the price variance is approved on account of the e-mail. Furthermore, you can define whether the e-mail contains a link to the SRM System.

· Quantity variance

This exception is triggered if you try to post an invoice that contains quantity variance that exceeds the tolerance limit. In the settings, you can define whether a notification e-mail is automatically sent in the case of a quantity variance, and to whom this e-mail is sent. You can stipulate that the invoice is posted automatically if the quantity variance is approved on account of the e-mail. Furthermore, you can define whether the e-mail contains a link to the SRM System.

Answers (1)

Answers (1)

Former Member
0 Kudos

Thanks a lot!!

The problem is solved.