301 tranfer and the TR relevant

[Former Member]

Dear All,

When 301 (transer between WM-managed plants) is executed, we use lt06 with the material document (other than TR) to proceed WM process. So we wish the TR would not be created automatically with 301 transaction. can SAP reach this goal?

thanks!

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi,

I am not a WM expert so I cannot be sure of this, perhaps a WM expert can confirm or correct me.

I would have thought that the solution was to change the config of the 301 (transaction OMJJ) to remove the link to the WM transfer by referencing 999 in the ref movement type field?

Steve B

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi

This can be acheived by doing small customization in WM.

Path:<b> SPRO--> Logistics execution --> Warehouse management --> Interfaces --> Inventory Management --> Define movement types.</b>

Pop screen will be opened, select <b>Assign WM Movement Type References to IM Movement Types</b> and check for mvt type 301 what is the refrence mvt type.

Come back and select second option <b>LE-WM Interface to Inventory Management</b>

In this screen, for your ware house(Storage loc of issuing plant) for mvt type 301, please select TR not required in 9th column.

By doing this can eliminate TR creation for mvt type 301

Regards

Ramakrishna

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Ramakrishna,

Thanks for that.

As I said I am not a WM expert.

But for my own information, would my proposal have worked? Setting 999 as the reference movement type for WM (in OMJJ or in the menu path you suggested, they are the same thing effectively).

Or would this have caused problems (just so that I know not to recommend this again)

Steve B

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Steve

If we assign reference mvt type 999 in OMJJ, this will not intiate any warehouse processes and , where as user wants to create TO from material document number by using LT06 and pick the goods from warehouse.

Regards

Ramakrishna

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi,

thanks for the clarification.

Steve B

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

thank you both very much!