cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

QM Report for Inspection Lot that already been Usage Decision

ryan_lazaro3
Participant
0 Kudos

Hi Guru,

May we ask you, if there is an existing SAP QM Report that can provide information for an Inspection Lot that are all been done UD?

We are expecting to see information contains Name, Ord Doc, etc that can be seen when you go through QA03 with its system status. If there is already exisiting one.

QA33 did not able to cater for our need. Thanks.

Accepted Solutions (0)

Answers (2)

Answers (2)

busyaban7
Active Contributor

Hi Totchiki,

To the best of my knowledge and experience, we already have the best report QA32/QA33 which is a masterpiece provided by standard SAP. It's the matter of display layout which is specific to the individual users / business user processing it, so SAP has provided additional fields to create specific layouts like below -

QA33 => please select "Select Only Inspection Lots with Usage Decision"

Then execute this report and make your new layout -

Now you double-check and confirm, what are the exact fields you are looking for. If you need some custom fields, you can create a custom layout with ABAP help, and use that layout during execution.

Thanks,

Arijit

ryan_lazaro3
Participant
0 Kudos

thanks Arijit. Will explore more for this tcodes. else we will result to a new development of report once my business still not satisfied with the standard one we have. Appreciate your response.

former_member42743
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Yes. you need to figure out exactly what the business wants. All the items you listed are available in QA32/33 as Arijit indicates. What is it they are looking for that isn't provided?

Craig

ryan_lazaro3
Participant
0 Kudos

Hi All,

We decide to create a custom Program report for this already. Thanks for all he help and inputs.

former_member42743
Active Contributor

I have to ask... why???

The biggest problem we have in SAP is with unnecessary development.

Can you share why the QA32/QA33 wasn't providing what was required?

Craig