Skip to Content
avatar image
Former Member

Deactivate Actual costing for a plant


Dear Experts,

We have a requirement where we had to deactivate the actual costing for an existing plant for which ML was activated and set to productive for the last 3 months (in a test environment, our project didnt go live yet) . I have turned off the Actual costing activation indicator now, for the plant and was able to save and transport this configuration.

But, when I execute CKMLCP, I still see this plant and am able to run the actual costing all the way to executing closing entries. Is there any other configuration that needs to be updated in order to turn off the actual costing? We do not want variances to be moved to the balance sheet for on hand inventory (Price Control S, Price determination 3). Do I have to change the price determination for all the materials belonging to this plant?

I went thru SAP NOTE 379447, but it was not applicable for us as it is for an older version and I was able to deactivate the actual costing and save the configuration.

Have you faced any issue like this? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Balram

Add comment
10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • Follow
  • Get RSS Feed

1 Answer

  • Sep 15, 2014 at 03:55 AM


    Hi Balram,


    To Deactivate ML go to CKMSTART and copy the Program SAPRCKMJ(Program Name) go to SE38 enter program SAPRCKMJX (include X) now u can deactivate ML…..all ML data will destroy from system


    Please don't do this in production system.



    Thanks,

    Chandrasekhar

    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

    • Former Member

      Hi Chandrasekhar,

      I am not trying to deactivate ML, I am trying to deactivate the actual costing functionality of ML, while keeping ML still active.

      Wanted to know after deactivating actual costing, will I still be able to see this plant in CKMLCP and if I can still run closing for this plant (I would think no, but wanted to confirm the system behavior in this case).

      Thanks,

      Balram