Skip to Content

Archived discussions are read-only. Learn more about SAP Q&A

Support team derivation

Firstly thanks to all the contributors. You have helped me a lot with my problem on the support team and have been able to get BP Id’s created after searching the forum and applying notes as you recommended.

But I am still stuck. My Support team still do not want to pull in automatically when the message is created: I have re-read almost all previous posts and still do not get this working, though your posts have already helped a lot.

Here is what I have done:

1)The organizational model for the Support Team was maintained. Business Partner id’s was generated. If I manually enter the BP id in the support message then the system recognize the BP and display the support team name. So the BP id’s seem to be OK..!

2) The support team do have the same country code as the Sold to party that has been maintained in IBASE. If I create the message the Sold to party do get derived and everything here seem to be OK.!

3) In transaction PFAC, for rule 13200137, I set up the responsibility to work on SAP component. Entered A* to Z*. I assigned my support team to the rule. I simulate the rule. It do find only one support team and that is the correct one. Seem to be still OK..!

4) In Partner determination Procedure “SLFN0001”, the Support team “SLFN003”, do NOT contain an access sequence as I want rule 13200137 to determine the Support team and customise document said I must then leave blank the access sequence.

a. Access sequence = blank

b. Determination tm = recurring

c. Block determine = blank

5) Organisation data profile was not maintained (Do I need to do something here?)

6) Org.data prof field on transaction SLFN = blank (Must there me a profile added in here)

The service desk additional customising document mention the following:

<i>To determine the Support Team, for example based on SAP components, ensure that the access sequence remains empty. The responsible Support Team will then be determined through a subsequent action (see transaction SPPFCADM)</i>

Might the problem be here or have I missed something between point 1 and 6 above that need to be corrected.

Thank you kindly

Johan

Former Member
Not what you were looking for? View more on this topic or Ask a question