Overriding the status quality inspection with unrestricted use

[Former Member]

Hi,

I have an issue getting a goods receipt posting (101) to unrestricted use.

In the material master the status it is set to quality inspection. On the other hand in the transaction migo it is set to unrestricted use by me.

Unfortuantely after processing, when I check the stock type, it is set to quality inspection. Therefore I assume that the setting in the material master overrules the settings I personally carried out by hand in the transaction migo. Is this the case?

If so, is there a way (e. g. setting) to override this? If this is not the case is there another solution to this problem?

Thanks in advance.

Best regards

Michael

[former_member190267]

Hi Michael,

Is there an inspection lot for the stock?

If yes, do the UD and post it to unrestricted use.

If not, run program ZQEVAC20 from note 48815.

Best regards,

Natália

[Former Member]

Hi Natalia,

Thank you very much for your fast answer.

Unfortunately, it seems, it stated my problem not precise enough.

The whole point of my problem is that I do not want to get an inspection lot (and furthermore the stock type set to unrestricted use) when I *manually* choose unrestricted use in the transaction migo (even if in the material master it is set to quality inspection, which I do not want to change).

Hope my problem is now more clear to everyone and sorry for the missing details. Nevertheless thanks again for your answer.

Best regards,

Michael

[former_member215526]

Hi Michael,

In my point of view, If you don't want this control with your Goods Receipt for Purchase Order movement please remove the Inspection Setup Data "01" in your material code, in Quality Management tab.

Remark: This change will works for the next PR/PO.

Best Regards,

Xavier

[Former Member]

Hi Xavier,

Thank you for your answer.

As far as I can see your suggestion would unfortunately effect all POs. In our case we only want to override the stock type for certain orders of certain vendors.

Best regards,

Michael

[former_member215526]

Hi Michael,

If I understand your request you can control the type inspection type with the UserExit "QAAT0001" and avoid to the inspection lot creation.

http://wiki.scn.sap.com/wiki/display/PLM/QAAT0001+Do

However this doesn't prevent the goods remaining in quality status, so after you will need to do as Natalia explain you to move quantity QM to un-restricted or some Z process.

Please verify if theses solution can help you.

I hope this can help you.

Best Regards,

Xavier

[busyaban7]

Hi Michael,

To answer your question - the first impression which comes up in my mind is like this is not possible through some standard setup, to behave differently for the same material for some specific PO/Vendors to post into q-stock and for some vendors put stock in unrestricted stock.

But in goods receipt user exit (Ex; BAPI_GOODSMVT_CREATE) you can add your business case through some custom table mapping, to suggest what way this stock posting should happen.

Programmatically, once 'post to inspection stock' selection is automatically picked in MIGO, that value should be double checked based on this new custom table and should be overwritten. Please ensure this check is correctly functioning so that your selective business cases can be addressed!! Please work with your technical team to fix it accordingly.

NOTE: The above logic will be applicable for Inspection active materials only. Here you can also suppress the inspection lot creation in case if you wish to do so. But if you wish to post material directly into quality stock, without activation of inspection type - post to quality stock, then please can you activate the check "Post to Quality Stock" in material master - purchasing view. Once you have that activated, I think, you can manually change it in MIGO to post it in 'Unrestricted Use" stock, will not be overwritten again.

Thanks,

Arijit

Message was edited by: Arijit Banerjee

[Former Member]

Hi Xavier, hi Arijit,

Thank you for your suggestions. I will have a look into them and will let you know after I checked their feasibility.

Best regards,

Michael

[busyaban7]

Hi Michael,

That's correct. Whatever we suggest it needs to be double verified before you move on. Appreciate your feedback.

Thanks,

Arijit

[Former Member]

Hi Xavier, hi Arijit,

Was looking into your suggestions and discussed them with my colleagues.

Unfortunately most of my colleagues are not to pleased as the suggestions would involve programming, which they want to avoid if somehow possible. (Still have to go that path tough if there is no other way.)

Therefore I wanted to ask you if any of you has an idea if there is a way to solve this with quality info records. This is what some other friend of mine suggested. Given that we have little experience with quality info records and try to look into this possibility at the moment, does anybody of you have any suggestions in that regards?

Best regards,

Michael