cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Issue in distributing Multi Line GOA to R/3

Former Member
0 Kudos

We have implemented note 967107 which allows us to distribute at the item level of the GOA. Now we are able to create one GOA with a separate line for each plant, regardless of the company it belongs to. On the SRM side this works well. However, when distributing this GOA, on the R/3 side we get an error which states that the plants of the various lines must belong to one company.

Is any one experiencing this same issue? If yes, how can it be solved?

Regards,

Ed

Accepted Solutions (1)

Accepted Solutions (1)

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Ed,

when there are several company code involved in one GOA, the distribution fails

in ECC. ECC expects to create one document per company code and the

company code for the ECC Idoc is derived from the plant. In your case, the system

does not know, which company code to use.

Note 967107 supports the distribution within one company code for several plant.

What kind of ECC Purchasing Organizations config are you using - dedicated to

Company code or across? Did you create the distribution information on header

level for each plant?

Thanks,

Claudia

Former Member
0 Kudos

Claudia,

Thanks for your response. We are working with a global purchasing organization that is linked to multiple plants, which belong to different companies. We do not have a direct connection between purchasing org and company as that would make the above structure impossible.

We created the distribution at the item level.

Before we implemented note 967107,we had the distribution at the header level, but this resulted in a GOA in R/3 with only one line for the first plant. We could not place orders against the GOA for the other plants as those lines were not visible.

Conclusion seems that it is not possible to work with real global contracts when using distribution. As a contract hierarchy also seems not to work for GOA's, we are stuck.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Ed

Answers (0)