Skip to Content

Standard inspection types 04, 08 are not stock relevant

Dears,

in one of our clients the issue is with the standard stock relevant inspection types.

Somehow it turned out the standard inspection types 04 and 08 have become not stock relevant. At the same time, other standard types like 01 and 05 are stock relevant.

That gives us an issue with allowed stock postings by movement types like 321 etc for SF and FG materials, for which 01 or 05 types are not set.

It means a user can do with stock postings whatever she/he wants without even touching QA11/QA12.

I have checked the customizing, the movement type setting etc but have not found anything suspicious.

Could you please suggest what could lead us to that issue and how I could fix it with a minimum effort?

A solution could be to activate 05 inspection type for all SF/FG materials but having inspection stock on hand it would be difficult.

Thank you in advance!

Regards,

Ilya.

Add a comment
10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

Related questions

5 Answers

  • Posted on Sep 28, 2018 at 01:13 PM

    I thought another possibility is that someone modified the settings in MM for the material movements. Any chance that QM was deactivated for certain material movements?

    Also check the "post to QI" is still ticked on in the material master for the 04 and 08 lots. I have seen people run QA08 and inadvertently change the settings for all materials. Not just a few.

    Craig

    Add a comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • Posted on Sep 27, 2018 at 02:32 PM

    Check with how your orders and STO's are created. Make sure in testing you create these totally from scratch.

    If the STO's are created from a contract or other pre-existing Purchasing document, (contract, order, req). the value in those might show a posting to unrestricted stock.

    If the 04's are created by copy existing orders, the same thing can happen.

    The other possibility is that a the control inspection lot setting is incorrect or you have a strange business process. For instance, do you received products into a generic batch number by any chance? If the control inspection lot setting is incorrect these could go right to UR because the system thinks the batch was already inspected once.

    For instance, I had a client that received batches in based on date, but not the year. I.e. a batch received in today would be 0927. so the next year it didn't go to QI because it was the same batch and storage location.

    Craig

    Add a comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • Posted on Oct 02, 2018 at 07:53 AM

    Hello Craig,

    thank you for your answers.

    In fact, my issue is that despite "post to insp. stock" is ticked in the both 01/04 types and on the material master QM view, an inspection lot does not lock the stock what leads to uncontrolled movements to UU stock in MIGO or MB1B while the lot is still open and UD has not been made.

    I have checked your suggestions. The MM and QM settings are identical in the client with this issue and in the client without it.

    The way to get a batch on stock is also rather standard. It is either PO/STO or a Process/production order created from scratch. And the "post to insp. stock" is always ticked on the item level of PO/STO. And the stock goes there and is visible on the inspection lot. Later, it is possible to post it via QA11/12 what is standard and required. But as I have stated above, the issue is this stock is allowed to be posted via MIGO or MB1B.

    Then we got MM/QM inconsistency and have to run a report to clear the mess.

    I think the standard must lock all the stock within a lot and popping up an error message "posting allowed in QC only". This is what is see in the second client where everything is working well.

    Could you please propose what I should do? Raise an OSS message? Any other ideas from your part?


    Thank you in advance!

    Regards,

    Ilya.

    Add a comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • Posted on Oct 02, 2018 at 02:06 PM

    I have tended to find that the actual flag that controls this is the inspection setup flag that is on the QM view. This field is not available to change but is set by the activation of an inspection type. The field is MARC-QMATV. The programming logic SAP has nothing to do with whether there are inspection lots or not. It checks the MARC-QMATV flag when deciding on whether to allow an MM posting.

    I would look to see first that this is set in both systems.

    The second thing I'd look at are the material movements. Are they custom? Are there code changes behind them? Did someone and an enhancement that in MIOG or MB1b that once MARC-QMATV is read, they set it to null?

    If nothing obvious pops up with looking at the above info, have a programmer set a watchpoint on MARC-QMATV and see if its being looked at or considered when running MIGO. Run it in the system that works so you see were MARC-QMATV is checked.

    Craig

    Add a comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • Posted on Oct 15, 2018 at 06:22 AM

    Dear Craig,

    thank you for your answers and suggestions. I have checked all the settings and tried to trace any hidden developments which might run in the background. Neither BADi not exits have been found.

    I have made a comparison between our reference system and a system of our customer where we experience this issue. Please find it below.

    1. Reference example, where everything works according to the standard.

    Material: Finished Goods PH-6505 SAPyrin (20*50 Tablet)
    Material master, QM view:
    Inspection setup includes an inspection type 04 “Goods receipt inspection from production” with checked parameters “PreferredInsType” and “Active”.
    The inspection type settings are purely standard and have not been touched.

    Once the inspection type has been added and parameters have been set, on the main QM view screen you can see that a parameter “Post to insp. stock” is disappeared.
    It means that the stock is going to be fully managed by QM.

    In the meantime, if I modify the standard inspection type 04 by activating it for HU (“Insp. for HU”), the parameter “Post to insp. stock” is back to the QM view. It means that the stock is going to be handled by HU management.

    2. The customer’s client example.

    The difference is the parameter “Post to insp. stock” always stays in the QM view even if the standard inspection type “04” type is added.

    3. The process flow 1.

    Production –> FG post to QI stock –> Quality Inspection –> Usage Decision –> Post to UU or Blocked stock

    In the both systems (the reference and the client’s ones) all the steps are performed correctly.

    The abnormal behavior begins once a user wants to make a posting to UU or blocked stock in MIGO or MB1B.
    In the reference system it is restricted. A user gets a pop-up message “Change the inspection stock of material xxxxx in QM Message no. QA495”

    In the client system, it is open. It means, a user can do any postings beyond the QM block which has been set by inspection lots.
    Afterwards, the system inconsistencies are to be solved by a function ZQEVAC20.

    4. The process flow 2.

    Production –> FG to HU packaging in COWBPACK –> FG on HU post to QI stock in COWBHUWE –> Quality Inspection –> Usage Decision –> Post to UU or Blocked stock

    In the reference system we activate an inspection type 04+HU. Then we do the flow and get the pallet posted in QA11/12.
    In the customer client, if we activate an inspection type 04+HU, we cannot post HU to QI stock in COWBHUWE getting the same error as before “Change the inspection stock of material xxxxx in QM Message no. QA495”.
    It means the standard flow does not work.

    Comparing settings in the both systems, I could not trace any changes or differences which might lead us to the solution. No hidden developments are run (neither Badi nor user exits).

    Therefore I would be grateful if you could have a look at the system in order to find out what is going wrong.

    Thank you in advance.

    Regards,

    Ilya.

    Add a comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

Before answering

You should only submit an answer when you are proposing a solution to the poster's problem. If you want the poster to clarify the question or provide more information, please leave a comment instead, requesting additional details. When answering, please include specifics, such as step-by-step instructions, context for the solution, and links to useful resources. Also, please make sure that you answer complies with our Rules of Engagement.
You must be Logged in to submit an answer.

Up to 10 attachments (including images) can be used with a maximum of 1.0 MB each and 10.5 MB total.