Skip to Content

S/4HANA Business partner approach: which roles for Ship-To?

Hi all,

we are currently setting up the business partner roles for a greenfield implementation of S/4HANA 1610. I read all available documentation on business partner approach and customer-vendor-integration (hopefully), but there are some questions where I don't have answers yet.

I have the requirement to set up business partners which are pure Ship-Tos (delivery address). In ECC I would have created a separate account group for Ship-Tos in order to maintain separate number range, mandatory fields etc.

From the project management and other involved consultancies we have been asked to only use standard business partner roles because it seems like some Fiories only work with the standard roles.

Ok, so I use role FLCU01 for the business partner "Sold-To", and it is integrated into the SD customer.

However, I can not use role FLCU01 for a pure Ship-To because I don't have all information available that is mandatory for a full Sold-To.

Same problem with a prospect. I need to create the customer views in SD (KNA1 / KNVV etc.) in order to be able to use them in a quotation. So now I use standard role BUP002. I changed the role category of role BUP002 from BUP002 to FLCU01 to have the sales views in the business partner, and I also managed to integrate it into the SD customer tables.

Would I do the same for a Ship-To? That means, using BP role CRM002 (Ship-To), eventually changing the role category so that I have the sales views in the business partner, and make sure that it integrates into the SD-tables? How about the account group then? I would have to set up a new account group, because the partner determination procedure (Ship-To has lees partner roles than Sold-To) is linked to the account group...?

I know the logic between BP grouping which then determines the account group for the customer (which then determines number range, text determination procedure, partner determination procedure etc.).

I just can't believe that SAP standard does not offer a BP role for pure Ship-Tos, Payers etc. that require different partner determination procedures etc.

Thanks a lot


Add comment
10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • Get RSS Feed

4 Answers

  • avatar image
    Former Member
    Jun 08, 2017 at 11:25 AM

    Hi Patrick,

    exactly this is the reason I've created a mitigation concept as workaround of standard partner determination based on account group. Please have a look at

    I've heard about that the whole Grouping, Role, Partner Determination and Account Group concept will be reworked but haven't any details yet. Please feel free to use my concept as starting point to get any idea how you can handle this issue.

    Best Regards

    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • Sep 28, 2017 at 08:19 PM

    Hi Patrick.

    In my perspective you should work with business partner groups instead business partner roles.

    Look this wiki available in our community:

    This scenario was wrote based in ECC with IS-U, but in S/4 the concept is the same.

    I supose that your problem and requirement is not related to Business Partner Roles, but Business Partner Groups. With business groups you can adjust the internal/external numbering and the fields that should be filled.

    Please, check this question regarding the difference between Partner Role and Partner Group:

    Please inform us if your problem was solved.

    Fausto Motter

    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

    • Hi Fausto,

      I am interested in this topic.

      The problem of using the grouping instead of the business partner function radicates in the fact that you also have a status field for the partner function (as well as in the account group linked to the grouping).

      Have you implemented that solution? How did you manage that?



  • Dec 15, 2017 at 09:15 AM

    Hi all,

    thanks for your valuable feedback. We now came to a solution with regards to differentiation of Sold-To / Ship-To / Payer / Bill-To in the business partner. For my detailed requirements please read my first post again.

    We use BP role FLCU01 for all of them. The BP grouping then leads to standard account group CUST. We then use BP types to define what exactly they are:

    • Z1 - Sold-To
    • Z2 - Ship-To
    • Z3 - Bill-To
    • Z4 - Payer

    By using the BP types we are able to define different sets of mandatory fields in the BP (SPRO: Configure Field Attributes per Business Partner Type).

    This comes pretty close to the ECC setup of different account groups for Sold-To / Ship-To.. etc.

    Finally I implemented USEREXIT_CHECK_VBAK to prevent the usage of e.g. a SHIP-To Business Partner as a SOLD-TO partner role in a sales document:

    loop at XVBPA assigning <XVBPA>.
          case <XVBPA>-PARVW.
            when 'AG' or 'WE' or 'RE' or 'RG'.
              call function 'BAPI_BUPA_CENTRAL_GETDETAIL'
                  CENTRALDATA     = LS_CENTRALDATA.
              select count( * ) from Z***_TC040 where PARVW eq <XVBPA>-PARVW and BPKIND eq LS_CENTRALDATA-PARTNERTYPE.
              if SY-SUBRC is not initial.
                FCODE = FCODE_GLEICHE_SEITE.
                "Customer &1 not allowed for partner role &2 (BP type &3)!
                message E005(Z***) with <XVBPA>-KUNNR <XVBPA>-PARVW LS_CENTRALDATA-PARTNERTYPE.
                perform FCODE_BEARBEITEN.

    In customizing table Z***_TC040 we define the possible combinations of BP-types and partner roles:

    AG Z1
    AG Z5
    RE Z1
    RE Z3
    RE Z4
    RE Z5
    RG Z1
    RG Z4
    RG Z5
    WE Z1
    WE Z2
    WE Z5

    Hope this is helpful for you!


    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • Jul 25, 2018 at 07:10 PM


    Does anyone have more information about this specific question?

    This topic has more than one year here now and there is no official document adressing this issue (if there is a standard BP role for creating ship-to parties or what is the advisable way of proceeding in this cases). At least I am not of such a document.



    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded