MM-SUS, Invoicing and Vender Partner Functions

[Former Member]

Hi Experts,

I'm confused about this new issue we're dealing with. We have a vendor "A" which has a PI partner function "B." Both vendors A & B are set up for SUS, with partner profiles, etc. When I create a PO with vendor A, however, and then create an invoice against the GR in SUS, the invoice created in ECC is against A, instead of B. Is there some way to address this?

I would have expected that ECC would look to the PO header (or maybe even the vendor master) to determine the appropriate partner.

Thanks,
Seth

[zoltan_keller · Accepted solution]

Hi Seth,

when the SUS invoice is created and sent to ECC, the IDOC will contain all relevant partners and the invoice will be created for the vendor partner contained in the IDOC invoice data. This will allways be vendor A in your example, and not the invoicing party B setup for vendor A. SUS does not support the invoicing party as partner type at all. In every SUS document only the vendor will be present as partner type. I guess you could create some kind of enhancement/user-exit code to set the invoicing party during IDOC processing. Unfortunately I don't know which user-exit can be used for this.

regards

Zoltan

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Zoltan,

On the one hand, I'm glad that I wasn't missing some setting when I saw this. On the other hand I'm confused as to why the process works this way. Seems like it's a big handicap if you can only use SUS with suppliers that don't have any business partners set up.

Thanks,
Seth

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Zoltan!

We ended up making some changes on the ECC side for both the inbound invoices and the payment status buttons. Basically we intercept the invoice creation to grab the PI partner from the PO, and we do something similar when the payment status is being checked.

I'm curious as to how other sites handled this issue. I doubt we're the only ones who have vendor partners...

Regards,
Seth

[ivy_li]

Hi,

I am not quite sure about your issue.
in ECC side, for each vendor, we may define multiple partner functions at organizational level.
Correspondingly, partner functions are called as vendor role in SRM side. It can be replicated together with vendor itself. in SRM or SUS, you may check table BUT100 to check its assigned roles which are replicated from ECC side.
I don't know what you mean by vendor A and partner function B. Please show me an example.

BR,
Ivy

[Former Member]

Hi Ivy,

Let's say we have a vendor with the VN parter 1000222. If you set up a PI partner function for that vendor with vendor ID 1000333, then in ECC, invoices are sent to 1000333. I would have expected SUS to behave the same way. If you create an invoice in ECC for vendor 1000222, then the invoice would be for vendor 1000333 in ECC. But this is not the case. As Zoltan says below, SUS doesn't see partner functions, so the invoice would go against 1000222.

-Seth

[ivy_li]

Hi Seth,

I agree with Zoltan.
In SRM, we only have the following BP roles:
===

BBP000  Vendor

BBP001  Bidder

BBP002  Portal Provider

BBP003  Plant

BBP004  Purchasing Company

BBP005

BBP006

BEA001  Billing Unit

BUP001  Contact Person

BUP002  Prospect

BUP003  Employee

BUP004  Organizational Unit

BUP005  Internet User

CRM007  Marketplace Supplier

CRM008  Marketplace Customer

FS0000  Financial Services BP

PRMA    Contact Person

PRMP    Channel Partners

===

For this design, SRM is quite different from MM side.

BR,
Ivy

[Former Member]

Thanks Ivy,

Any idea how this scenario is handled in SUS? Or is it just used with suppliers that don't have a different PI partner than VN partner. As I said below, that seems like a major shortcoming with SUS.

Regards,
Seth

[ivy_li]

Hi Seth,

Zoltan is real expert in SUS side, so I believe he already explained the design in SUS side.

BR,
Ivy

[Former Member]

Hi Seth,

Have you checked the payment transactions tab in the vendor master data.

is the alternative Alternative payee provided in the payment transactions?

Check if the vendors belong to same group? and also if any enhancement have been maintained in relation to the it.

Hope it helps.

Regards

Basheer