Skip to Content

Archived discussions are read-only. Learn more about SAP Q&A

inventory count done in two sap

Hello,

With reference to discussion forum.. "http://scn.sap.com/thread/3686349", i open a new one for discussion. (Jurgen .. thanks!)
Actually, I am encountered this error is because I would like to design a process to allow using standard SAP inventory transactions to perform movement of 701 to 708. Let me show you the background.


I am developing an interface for two SAP ECC6 reside in two diffrerent company entities. When company ABC completed stock count and posting the differences in their SAP ECC6, we only transfer the stock quantity difference posting to company XYZ via the interface with all the related parameter and pass into the interface and call BAPI to either MIGO, MB** transaction to perform the posting to ensure stock quantity match bwtween two systems.


I tried the following three methods and all failed because of error message "Check table 150F: entry   X does not exist". (method 1: MB11, Method 2: MIGO, method 3: new movement copy refer 701 to 708 and post using MB11 and MIGO).. all failed see blow.

Now, I am thinking of another design method which is, instead of only posting the quantity difference (i.e. MI07) into company XYZ, all the physical inventory document and the entered quantity also need to transfer to interface and posted into company XYZ when transaction MI01, MI04 are posted in company ABC (offcouse MI07 will need to post in XYZ in final part).

Question:

1 - Do you think this will avoid the error message?

2 - Do you think this is a good design and will work?

3 - I am wondering if I peform the solution as stated in the OSS note "376571 - M7686: Error message long text incorrect", which is.. "You can adjust the long text via Transaction SE91 by replacing movement types 701 to 708 by the correct movement types 711 to 718, as described above.", do you think the error ("check table 150F: entry X does not exist") will be gone and in which case method 1 and method 2 are still feasible design?

Thanks and regards,
Tuff

Former Member
replied

You have done an excellent job of communicating you solution ideas but I'm struggling to understand what you are trying to achieve.

For example if you reduce stock in company ABC are you trying to make the same reduction in company XYZ?  How would that work financially if they are two separate entities.

If you are trying to post the opposite transaction in XYZ this at least becomes a balanced transaction and make some sense financially.  If it is the opposite then you will need to change the movement type to get the correct posting in company XYZ so you can choose any appropriate movement type to get the results you need.

As said in the other discussion you cannot manually post the 701 to 708 movements but you could create new movement types in company XYZ which will match them financially and allow manual postings.  Then use those instead of the standard movements when making the postings on the other side of the interface.

0 View this answer in context
Not what you were looking for? View more on this topic or Ask a question