SCM Authrization Issue

[former_member188806]

Hi,

We are facing a serious

authorization problem in our SCM system.

We want to provide a bifurcation at

the Production Planner "APO_PL_PPS"

level.This is possible for

authorization object "C_APO_PPL"

(PP/DS, Production Planner),

however "C_APO_PROD" (Master Data,

Products) consists of only 3 fields.

Since the Product Id's ("APO_PROD")

do not follow any specific

nomenclature in our landscape, we

cannot provide any limitation here.

The problem is that when Product Id is "*"; irrespective of other

objects (eg. APO_PL_PPS); all the Product's can be viewed by all users.

Is there some way in which we can allow users belonging to a particular

Production Planner to view only their respective Product Id's..

Please help, since it's real important that only users belonging to a

particular Production Planner view their respective Product Id's.

Thanks a lot,

Saba.

[Former Member]

I don't know this objects, but have you tried searching here and "OSS" for any infos on the technical field name to see why it is used as a field for the object and whether extentions of the concept are possible, or documentation on the object in SU21 perhaps?

That the product ID is used as a field would suggest that a naming convention is required for them to be able to use wildcards and ranges, unless single values or * is the end of the (usable) concept for it.

Perhaps some one else has already faced and solved this problem in a different way?

Cheers,

Julius

[former_member188806]

Hi,

I've created a new object in SU21 with Production Planner & Product Id, however for this object to be checked I'll have to modify the std. program..

I've tried searching everywhere, but to no avail:(

Thanks,

S

[former_member188806]

Also, ranges cannot be used, since like I said before, there is no specific nomenclature maintained.

[Former Member]

Before you change the standard program, I would suggest keeping the thread here for a while to see whether somebody who has encountered this in APO knows whethere the naming convention (nomenclature) is the intended design and whether or not an alternate solution (work-around for retro-fit) is possible / available.

If you wish, I can move this thread to the "APO" forum to see whether the functional or development folks have solved this problem? Formally, forum "cross-posting" is not encouraged, but if you do, then please also cross-reference the threads...

Cross-reference....

Cheers,

Julius

Edited by: Julius Bussche on Apr 4, 2008 7:16 AM

[former_member188806]

Dear Julius,

Thank u so much for your reply..if you wish you can move it to the APO forum...I posted it in both since we are desperate for a solution..

Thanks,

Saba.

[Former Member]

I left it up to the APO moderators to decide on the cross-posted and cross-referenced thread...

Cheers,

Julius