cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Results Recording valuation icon

former_member235613
Participant
0 Kudos

Has anybody found a way to enhance the valuation icon that is displayed for individual results? The standard is a green check if the result passed and a red X if the results failed. We are wanting a third icon to represent if the result is between 1st upper limit and upper spec, or between 1st lower limit and lower spec (we call these "action limits"). The valuation would still remain accept, we just want a yellow icon or something as a visual warning to the user.

We currently have the functionality generating a warning message (very similar to the out of plausibility limits message) via BAdI QE_RESULT_VALUATION,. However, this message is causing problems in a mass inspection point copy transaction we are building. Thanks for your input!

Accepted Solutions (0)

Answers (3)

Answers (3)

former_member235613
Participant
0 Kudos

This was done via an implicit enhancement.

former_member235613
Participant
0 Kudos

Getting close! I'll get the enhancement point details on Monday. It's Friday and i'm ready for a beer.

nitin_jinagal
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Good. Pl share once you get the solution. This would come handy

ntn

nitin_jinagal
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

I came across a similar requirement where user wanted to have this facility. But couldn't get away as ultimately, you would valuate it either as Accept or Reject. I personally, don't see any logic behind it by leaving it in between. Mentioning about final need may find us with a solution but that would again leave me with the fact of deteriorating the standard functionality.

If something is available, which I'm not aware of, then I would love to know it.

ntn

former_member235613
Participant
0 Kudos

we aren't affecting the valuation at all (still A or R), but they want some kind of warning they are getting near the spec and need to tweak the production line. so they put in a set of limits tighter than the spec limits that won't reject the material, but serve as a warning.

Our ABAP'er might have found a way, so I'll keep this thread updated.

former_member42743
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Jim,

Can you set this as an SPC characteristic with 1st and 2nd warning limits?  You should then be able to use some user exits directly after saving results to issue emails or something.  I don't know when saving the results if you get any pop-up or warning when the result exceeds the limits.  I've never take the SPC stuff that far.

This almost sounds like a classic SPC application.

Craig

nitin_jinagal
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Ok. Just a thought to share. Can you use calculated MICs here. I'll explain,

Lets say you have a MIC for which allowed spec is 9 to 10. And you want this warning kinda thing if value/result fall on border e.g 9.1

Now a calculated MIC with respect to original one and with formula C00010, and spec limit 9.2 to 9.8 is assigned to plan.

Whenever user enters 9.1 in original MIC (and would be accepted), but it would update the calculated one with valuation Reject (as it falls outside 9.2 & 9.8). This way user can get to when to report.

I have never tested this so not sure this would work out. Worth trying once in sandbox n I'll do this in the morning.

ntn

former_member235613
Participant
0 Kudos

Hmmm, i suppose you could, but that may be overkill and having two places to maintain specs for one MIC isn't very friendly for the users. They don't need any emails or notifications, just a simple way to alert them while actually entering the results.

They manually set all of their specifications for each material, so i like using the 1st upper and 1st lower fields in the inspection plan so that it's a one-stop-shop for entering both spec limits and action/warning limits. This works well with our current warning message functionality, but the only problem there is it requires an extra key stroke to acknowledge the warning. A little too intrusive. Having a different icon is ideal.

former_member235613
Participant
0 Kudos

in theory that would work, but i see some problems:

  1. you are adding more MIC's to results entry which means it now takes longer to enter results. a big no-no for us since our inspectors are very busy.
  2. The calculated MIC will be valuated reject, which then stops Auto UD's. also a no-no for us.
  3. We only want to valuate reject when material should actually be scrapped, which in this case it won't be.