cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Follow up action after not Ok Usage Decision to nested HU

olesia
Explorer
0 Kudos

Hello,

we are facing the issue that after Usage decision the follow up action will be triggered not to the highest HU.

The HU will "deconsolidated" and Warehouse Tasks are created to every sub-HU. How to avoid the deconsolidation and WT creation for every box on the pallet?

For OK decision I have solved this issue by removing of WPT from follow up Action, but for NOK decision we need to maintain the WPT to redirect the HU to another area.

Accepted Solutions (1)

Accepted Solutions (1)

jan_werneke
Explorer
0 Kudos

Hi,

we had the same problem in an implementation project with S4HANA 1809 (about 2 years ago). We opened a ticket for this with SAP support, here we were told "Works as designed". We then solved it as below:

Another workaround could be to use the standard logic, but the set the internal action to empty for the internal follow-up action in EWM (currently it is putaway?). Thus no putaway WT will be created. Now you can setup a a job (z-report) to check regularly the quality location to check the HUs if the decision done for the whole HU, then you can create the WT for the topHU.

Hope this helps a bit.

Greetings Jan

Answers (1)

Answers (1)

Daniil
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi Olesia,

in my understanding action on top hu level could be a problem at least because you can have several inspection lots in HU.

You can try to set action same as for OK (I guess Putaway + FF), but use BB instead of FF, in this case you stock should be posted to blocked stock and you can use putaway strategy to find different destination storage type. QIE checks if you have process in HU ( which you should have since you use deconsolidation ), and WT is created based on process oriented storage control. But for me it is still little bit hard to understand how the movement should be done. Deconsolidation it is usually different products, or/and different deliveries/purchase orders, and in this case usually different inspection lots, and in this case you can get OK and NOK and Not Decided in a same HU.

And it is as well BAdi available for the followup action (you can see it in customizing for followup action).

BR,

Daniil

olesia
Explorer
0 Kudos

Hello Daniil,

we have also POSC in place and after I removed the WPT from Ok Follow up Action, the WT after usage decision will be created by POSC for the highest HU. If the follow up Action triggers the WTs creation, they are created on Sub-HU Level (for every box a WT). The requirement is to move full pallets as mostly parts are either fully accepted or not; and also move mixed pallet to the pallet storage, if there is the same usage decision done. Only in such cases as mixed pallets and different decisions, the parts needs to be separated from each other, based on decision.

How I understad Standard follow up Action can not handle Nested HU and triggers the WTs for product items. Is there a possibility to handle also mixed HUs without deconsolidation before?

Thank you a lot

Daniil
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hello Olesia,

What I mean is following, if you have different Inspection documents, UD happens independently, and one Task at Top-HU level does not fit here. When first UD is done system cannot know what be the second one. For such case BAdi can be used, to create WT only when all UD are done. And QIE followup action cancels (depends on customizing, but usually it is) open WTs. It means probably last UD wins in this case 🙂

Do you have tasks for HU before UD? System behaves differently based on original tasks, and as well based on POSC. You said it works well for you for "OK" action. Which one follow-up do you have for "not OK"? is it as well 4 = Putaway? Can you set it as well for "Not OK" action? In this case POSC should work, and it should be actually same as for OK action.

If you can read ABAP you can check more details in the method TASKS_TWO of the class /SCWM/CL_QFU_SUPER.

It is all little bit complicated there, therefore I would suggest to test it with different options, or at least debug to see how it works.

BR,

Daniil