cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Usage Decision not allowed to accept if any MIC rejected while result recording.

former_member216607
Participant
0 Kudos

Dear SAP,

We have a requirement that while doing result recording for any lot if one of the MIC got rejected then system not allowed the user to accept the lot.It only allowed to reject it.For that what control should i provid.Please guide.

Regards,

Asif

Accepted Solutions (1)

Accepted Solutions (1)

busyaban7
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi Asif,

Please can you check implementing the below user exit to support your business case -

QEEM0003  User exit: add. functions after valuating insp. characteristics

Working Process:

When the MIC status will be "3" that is the case when standard SAP will propose if the value is "Accept" or "Reject". So this is the time, the control should be implemented so that what ever is the value proposed by SAP, that should be acknowledged and even if user uses to change it, hard coded error should block it for saving this new value.

Please test and confirm,

Thanks,

Arijit


former_member42743
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Arijet:  Wouldn't the UD Check user exit be more appropriate for this?  I think he's referring to a UD accept/reject code, not the valuation on the MIC.

I think you're thinking that they don't want the user to override the valuation of the MIC.  Which actually might be a very valid check to add.  Otherwise a user could go into any rejected MIC, manually change the valuation to accept and then make the accept UD.

Craig

busyaban7
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi Craig,

Yes, you were right and I was thinking that way only...!! Thanks for bringing it to my notice.

Well as you suggested, I believe Asif should also work on the below exit rather - QEVA0010  UD: Usage decision check, and implement a check that if the results came as rejected, then no one can be allowed to add the UD code as "Accept". In fact, to have a compliant IT fix, changes can be adopted in both the exits if possible..

Hi Asif,

Hope you got your necessary guidance here. Just ensure that this kind of proposed hard code and it's consequence is made aware to the business before implementing it. Please check and suggest if there is anything further you are looking at.

Thanks,

Arijit

former_member42743
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Also.. one other suggestion.  Make sure they know what they are signing up for!!!  I always get the compliant that SAP is not flexible.  I always counter that it is as flexible as you choose to design it.

You are adding in checks to lock down standard functionality even farther.  Just make sure you can pull out an email from the key users six months from now that basically says "I warned you".   I can almost promise you that at some point, a batch will fail a test and they will still want to give it a PASS UD and when they can't, they will complain.  And then you pull out your email. 

One way to give them some flexibility, is to add a specifc "pass" UD code like OVR (Override).  Write the user exit to allow this code despite the rejected MIC.  If you check with a security person, I believe you can implement security down  to the code level.  I.e. only give the OVR code to one or two people in the company and then have the users develop an SOP around what is required to ask those people to make the UD with the override code.

Craig

anand_rao3
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Absolutely correct !! Very well explained. This is what typically happens most of the times when users give the requirements considering current business situations only. Technically, with few exits it might be possible to achieve this, but if I ponder a little; a question arises that are they blocking the chances that a rejected MIC lot can't be accepted under deviation under any circumstances? In true sense does this really happen to business processes? Perhaps not!! That might be the reason SAP has bifurcated result recording and UD as 2 separate events. I liked your OVR UD code idea for this!! Brainstorming on various outcomes of this and a joint agreement between concerned on the process ease out this functionally!

Anand

Answers (0)