Changing Components maintained for a Specification (Mass Change)

[Former Member]

Hi All,

We need to replace the components (in Hazardous ingredients property) in a specification with new specifications created.

This needs to be done for a lot of specifications hence need to be done using an program.

What do you think would be the best way to achieve this?

Thank you very much for your feedback.

Regards,

Gaurish Dessai

[former_member191252]

Gaurish,

So, let me go through your question one by one:

1. You want to replace the specification "A" with "B" and change the values in B.

2. This need to be done for a lot of Spec? are you planning to replace the data model? this will cause effect on your data model. Why means, your entire product will get effected like compositions & rules that you have for a product. Like a group of spec's with reg.data and Real Sub with rules will creates your product, if you try to replace anything in any spec, it will reflect in many products, so need to be careful.

Using program, i strongly suggest to not to use program to do this, if its a groups of specs.

3. Best Approach, we still need your details,like how many spec's, in how many products it will effect and etc details. Not so easy to say Yes, with out have data model structure.

--

[Former Member]

Hi Tarun,

Your deduction is absolutely correct, we are intending to change the data model.

Currently we are using REAL_SUB (RS) specifications as compositions for other REAL_SUB specification; but what we want to do is, create LIST_SUB (LS) Specifications and use them instead of REAL_SUB Specifications as compositions.

Example: We have a RS spec RS_A with two compositions RS_B and RS_C. Now we want to create LS_B and LS_C corresponding to RS_B and RS_C using Copy template functionality and the replace RS_B and RS_C in RS_A.

currently we have around 120 RS specs being used as compositions in more then 1K Mixtures. so doing it manually would be a very painful task.

Regards,

Gaurish

[former_member191252]

Gaurish,

You will be in trouble, I haven't discussed total data model here. You need to consider some pain points:

1. If you are indenting to change the data model, then you need to consider entire structure. If you are planning to add list_sub in you data model, then it should be in every spec: Why, because, that is what you are buying from the regulatory content and inheritance to pure sub.

2. List_Sub vs Real_Sub, in the standard process, both are different, the way we are considering, as per our discussion. I am not sure if you have any material assignment for them or not, technically no material assignment for the list sub, but i am not sure in your case, if you have anything for your RS_B or RS_B? More over, what about the regulatory data for RS_B, if its a part of RS_A?

Here are my suggestions, if you are intending for the new data model, technically go for the best practice, like List_Sub, Pure_Sub and Real Sub (for your products). Maintain your changes in the pure and replace your real_sub with them in the RS_A. This is just a best practice, but not need to be compulsory. Talk to you SMEs. else you will be in big trouble. Still we are not even considering the data load while we relate the RS_B with LS_B and also expert rules and other data.

Hope this will be helpful for your query.

--

[former_member191252]

Hope, it was helpful.

--

[christoph_bergemann]

Dear Gaurish

from EHS point of view there is no reason to exchange the specs. You could go on in using REAL_SUB without any problem. I am sorry to say:

we have only these "dumb" methods to execute such kind of mass changes:

a.) trying to do mass ehs export (change spec) and import it(never tried it this way !!)

b.) may be using ALE (from external source) (never tried it this way)

c.) may be using OCC (which is moreor less only dedicate to"legal" updates; so I am not sure if it will work and we do not use this tool in this context)

Statement: 1.) your amountof changes is quite low; 2.) only one value assignment type is effected  (Hazardous ingredients) => there do it by "hand" (one by one)

But I have some "similar" doubts as may be Tarun. In most cases the story is like this:

You have a "REAL_SUB"; you maintain a composition (e.g. in one of the "Exact compoistions); then you use rule sets to populate Hazardous ingredients

Therefore. what is your data modell???

Second (I agree fully to Taruns explanation): before you can exchange the "spec" number you need to make sure that on LIST_SUB level you will find the same data; further on you might get trouble with "change marks" in reports if you do it like this (reasons are to complex to be enumerated here)

Conslusion: the solution depends on "future data model". If you need to exchange the specs only "once" and there is no demand for future, then you should generate a "one and only" report; in most cases this is not true; this type of "demand" is coming up more than one time during the life cycle ofa SAP ERP EHS enabled systems; therefore it is better to look for future options than to prepare a "one and only" report

C.B.

PS: e.g. check:

[Former Member]

Hi Tarun,

Below are my thoughts corresponding to each point you have mentioned:

1. Yes, we intend to make this change for each specification which currently has the Real Substance as composition with the corresponding LIST substance so that we can load the regulatory content data. But we do not want to have the Pure substance layer.

2. We do not have any material assignment as there is no integration between EHS and MM in our system. the regulatory data already maintained in RS_A/B would be copied to LS_A/B.

do let me know your views. Thanks.

Regards,

Gaurish Dessai

[Former Member]

Hi C.B,

The future data model that we intend to arrive at is having only LIST_SUB being used as compositions to REAL_SUB so that we can implement the expert rules.

that is the reason i wanted to know the best design for a generic ABAP report to do this.

Thanks for your views on the topic.

Regards,

GAurish Dessai

[christoph_bergemann]

Dear Gaurish

in most cases the use of the "expert rules" should be independent of "spec type". The Rule set more or less reads only the data on compoment level etc. to derive new data; the "spec type" is no "helpful2 information for that. E.g. the "Easy Expert rules" should workas well independent of "spec type"

PLease check: http://scn.sap.com/docs/DOC-41109

You will finde lot of references regarding teh use of the existing APis/BAPIs in EHS. You should never ever do a direct update on EH&S tables without using the APIs/BAPis.

You must check carefully the topic of "where used" topic to make sure that any spec "a" is really "swapped" to spec "B" in any relevant data record.

C.B.

PS: check this report: RC1_1077_BAPI_EXAMPLE_CHANGE EHS: Example Program Spec.BAPIs (FctGrp. 1077): Change - SAP Report - A...

You will find additional once delivered by SAP:

May be this link might be of interest too:

How to read sort sequence and other properties of a specification in Cg02 ., CG02 ...

[Mark-Pfister]

Hello Gaurish

 1. Yes, we intend to make this change for each specification which currently has the Real Substance as composition with the corresponding LIST substance so that we can load the regulatory content data. But we do not want to have the Pure substance layer.

This is IMHO not a good idea, and I would strongly advice against that  approach!

If you want to use data from a data provider you should create a second level - normally called PURE_SUB.
You need this level to maintain additional data like Phys/Chem and Tox/EcoTox data.

Or to change the data from the data provider because it is incomplete / wrong / not up to date / not fitting for your use and products etc...

Even if your provider has all data and 100% correct - you still need to run (at least for the SAP Content (SAP ERC) ) rules sets on this level that add data.

Of course you could just maintain the additional data at the LIST_SUB level. But then you will not be able to distinguish easy which data you maintained - and which data was from your content provider....

Kind Regards

Mark

[Former Member]

HI CB, All,

Yes. the change in data model and decision not to use the PURE SUB was a request from our client based on the consultation they got from SAP. we managed this using a custom program which called BAPI*1077*CHANGE.

We managed to create new list substances which were then linked to REAL_SUB Specification.

This was done for the Composition/Spec.lsting properties.

Thanks all.

Regards,

Gaurish

[christoph_bergemann]

Dear Gaurish

well done.  Congratulation.

C.B.