Planned Maintenance order untimely / early generation

[Former Member]

Hi Experts,

We have IP30 background job that has generated orders due in 2018.

Refer call 3, which got generated to early as compared to the due date. Any suggestions for the possible reason?

Thanks

DM

[MTerence]

Hi Deepak,

Not sure how much this helps you.

Can you please check this note 1960778 - IP30/IP10 doesn't take completion requirement into account

You need to check whether the future call is called once you scheduled the plan or after completing the order

Regards

Terence

[peter_atkin]

DM,

Was this IP30 job created manually, and if so, did you use the Immediate Start For All parameter in the IP30 selection-screen?

Also go to the order(s) that were created for call 3 and check which user created them - just in case it was a manual call (and not via IP30).

PeteA

[Former Member]

Hi pete,

Thanks for quick response.

Yes, its immediate start selected in IP30 variant, is that causing this?

And, also checked manual calls TAB in IP10 against the same plan its blank. so its not manually called.

DM

[Former Member]

Adding IP30 snapshot

[sebastian_lenartowicz]

Greetings Deepak,

I think what Pete meant was that the Order might have been called by selecting the "green flag" in IP10 for the scheduled call 3, and not an additional "manual call".

[sunil_mundhe3]

can you also paste screen shot of IP10, Want to check what are package used for this MP?

cycle length in call 2-3 & 3-4 is not equal.

Rgds

Sunil

[Former Member]

Thanks Sebas,

I'll check this.

And, what about "immediate start for all" option in IP30? That shouldn't be selected while running IP30 in background?

DM

[jogeswararao_kavala]

Hello Deepak,

That will not have any effect because of the Completion Requirement tick (I noticed you have it).

KJogeswaraRao

[Former Member]

Hi Sunil,

Here are the IP10 snapshots.

Issue is how call number 3 got generated so early..

Thanks

DM

[Former Member]

Thank you Mr. Rao.

Now, issue is how call number 3 got generated so early.

Regards

DM

[jogeswararao_kavala]

Yes,

1. Investigate in the lines of Green flag as Sebastian suggested.

2. Also an important point so far not discussed has been raised by Sunil , i.e., cycle length. (You need to investigate in this direction too.)

3. More likely we need to search for suitable note like suggested by Maria.

4. As a last resort you may have to knock at OSS.

[sunil_mundhe3]

Hi DM,

Also it looks like someone restarted the MP, select the  Call3 and click on "call algorithm" button might hel you to understand what parameters system considered.

I have strong filling about Restart and Package change.

Good luck!

Rgds

Sunil

[Former Member]

Hi Sunil,.

Below are the call algorithm for call 2 and 3. I have an issue with call 3 about early generation.

But I can see call 2 has scheduling type N and 3 has T therefore Call2 is a result of restart and call 3 is a scheduled call.

So I am still wondering about the reason of early call for call 3.

[peter_atkin]

Deepak,

The Immediate Start For All may have an effect since the previous call (call 2) has been completed. So the Completion Requirement has been satisfied.

Did you enter a large value in Interval for Call Objects field in IP30??

PeteA

[sunil_mundhe3]

Hi,

How come you ran IP30 on 2013.07.05 (IP20130705), As your Last Call on 07.07.2015 & Call by IP20130705 ; it should be IP1020150707

For Today it look like this IP1020150710 (2015.07.10)

[sunil_mundhe3]

Hi Deepak,

Last thing check Variant,

IP30 -

Menu => Goto =>Variants=>display=>list will appear

Check for Variant created with Group Name - IP1020130705, ther you must having field Name "Call objects for n days" and assigned "Values"

Rgds

Sunil

[sunil_mundhe3]

sap note 2003355 - Maintenance Plan call date is incorrect when shift factor
is filled

[Former Member]

Hello Sunil,

Thanks for spending your precious time for such a detailed analysis.

I am checking these points and will share info soon.

[Former Member]

Hello Pete,

We have a call horizon of 80% so interval for call object should not matter? isn't it?

Here order got generated after barely completing 25% of the frequency.

Thanks

DM

[MTerence]

Hi Deepak,

Just a quick doubt, are you able to replicate this issue in your test clients or this is result of your testing. In that case, go for OSS notes.

Regards

Terence

[peter_atkin]

DM,

Yes, the interval for call object does matter... read the help on this field.

Can you send us a screen-shot of your IP30 batch settings please.

PeteA

[Former Member]

Hello Pete,

Here is the snapshot, we have a blank in interval for call object and executing against the sort field.

Is that creating orders even when it doesn't meet call horizon criteria?

Thanks

DM