QM-Tasklist not getting assigned to inspection lot

[Former Member]

Hi All,

I have an issue in QM,can anybody help me to sort out this issue.

I have selected "Automatic assignment"and "inspection with tasklist" as preferred in the material master, and so tasklist is getting added at the time of creating inspection lot manually,but sometimes tasklist is not getting assigned automatically to the inspection lot. Its happening for different customers & different material.

Can anybody tell me why the tasklist is not automatically assigned to the inspection lot.

Thanks for your valuable time in reading my message.

With regards

Anbu

[Former Member]

Dear anbu,

please check you might have created more than 1 task list for the same material with same usage.

[Former Member]

Hi Sandeep,

Thanks for your mail.

I have one tasklist for this material.

Only happening for Sales orders created from CRM.

Thanks & regards

Anbu

[Former Member]

I can think of two things

1.Check when was the inspection plan created with what key date .if the key date is after the lot was created then you will have to create inspection plan before the key date of lot creation.

2.Also,check if it only the users who are not able to create the assigment and you are able to do it.It happened with us a lot that we were able to create the assignment but not the user.there is some security settings wherein they have assign this role based upon the inspection type for the users so that automatic assigmnment is carrie out.This you have to talk to your security guys.

Get back of your still havng the problem.

regards,

Naik

[Former Member]

Hi

Thanks for your mail.

I just verified the key date of inspection plan, nothing wrong with the date as well as security rights.

Still Iam trying to find it out....

Thanks & regards

Anbu

[Former Member]

Dear,

If your settings are correct, then the assignment is done automatically. IF it is not happening, then check the usage type is matching with the usage type you maintained in IMG for the insopction type. If it is matching then assignmenmt will not happen automatically.

Other reasons are

1. staus of inspction plan - is it 4?

2. Inspection lot size and lot size enetered in the task list is covering or not?

example - my inspction qty is .45 to. But the lot size maintained in task list was 1 to to 999999 to. In this case I wan having the problem of automatic pickup of task list as the task list available was not matchingb with .45 TO.

please come back if required

[Former Member]

Hi thanks for your mail.

Issue does not match your comments..

Still Iam trying to find it out....

Thanks & regards

Anbu

[former_member187991]

hi anbu

kindly check whether your usage has been maintained correctly in the task liist,ie if the inspection lot is generated by goods receipt 5,then the system will only search for that usage only ,you have to maintain 5 in the usage field in the task list header and should have the status has 4.then the system will automatically pick up the task list

regards

thyagarajan

[Former Member]

Hi

thanks for your mail

I just verified the usage type 6 for issues, which is correct.

Still Iam finding it out

Thanks

Anbu

[Former Member]

What is the significance of using 6-Goods issue,can you elaborate your usage,Is it for inspecting the returns from the customer?

Regards..

SVP

[Former Member]

Anbu,

Is the task list created specifially for this material or its a common task list(for more than one material)

If it is for more than one material then system will not automatically assign

Check n revert back

Regards,

SVP

[former_member263130]

Dear SVP,

Can you please explain "If it is for more than one material then system will not automatically assign"???

And if this is case then how to handle quality of spares, if there are around 1000 spares for which no result recording is require but UD is require. So, according to you is it necessary to have seperate task list for all 1000 spares, instead of one dummy task list, as otherwise inspection lot will not get released status.

Please revert back.

Thanks,

Devang