Balance amount of commitment item not to be carried forward

[former_member304964]

I have a requirement from a client of mine :

As per SAP standard ( as per our knowledge), if there is any balance after MIRO, system will carry forward commitment item budget value to next year.

Here client requirement is that if GR and MIRO done for full of PO quantity.. after that if there is any balance due to price variance…. system should not carry forward the balance amount to next year.

Example:-

• If PO done for 100 quantity and GR and MIRO happened for 50 quantity in that case system is carry forwarding the balance amount to next year after running commitment carry forwarding transaction code which is ok for them.
• But if PO done for 100 quantity and GR and MIRO also happened for the same quantity(Full quantity) at the price of Rs.100/- due to price variance MIRO amount reduced to 80 rupees as per standard SAP balance 20 rupees will get carry forward to next year
• Now client is asking that if GR and MIRO done for PO full quantity if there is any balance amount in commitment item level, system shouldn’t carry forward the balance amount to next year

If anyone can help with solution from his experience, will be obliged.

[iklovski]

Hi,

This works as you describe it, but only if you have reduction of commitment based on a mount (default). What you are asking is actually that the commitment would be reduced based on the quantity and not on the amount. This is possible and defined on the level of the Unit of Measure, which you state for your materials, when doing logistic document; i.e. for every UoM you can define whether commitment is reduced on the amount or quantity level. The setting is done in CUNI transaction by a flag 'Value-based commitment', where you have all your UoM. If the flag is set, the commitment is done on amount basis, if not - on the quantity.

Regards,

Eli

[former_member304964]

Was not aware of this flag function. Will do the requisite change and test scenarios.

A further query to you if you help me:.

1. Can we change this flog selectively i.e. for some units ( not for all) based on need as units may be interlinked?
2. In case we change this flag now for a unit, will it cause inconsistency in existing documents or some other issue that you may be aware of? Great to have your experience on this if you have done the same.

Requesting your advice as during test, I may miss to test some critical scenario if I am not aware of.

[iklovski]

1. In standard configuration, it is a flag on the level of UoM. I.e. all the documents with this UoM will be managed under the regime set for this UoM

2. Change of the flag is technically possible. Commitments will readjust their behaviour, but not retroactively. Therefore, each case of change should be duly analysed in a view of the status of open commitments.

[former_member304964]

Hi,

Done the testing. Appropriate CUNI set-up for UoM noted in the suggestion above, was already there.

Found that even in cases where the quantity is fully consumed, some value can be present due to surcharge / discount/tax. These residual values are getting carried forward.

Is there any way to stop this carry forward like writing enhancement etc. or configuration setting?

[iklovski]

If commitment is managed by quantity, and GR is issued on the full quantity, the commitment should be closed (zeroised). If it is not the case, please, post screenshots from the PO, GR and commitment table in FM (FMIOI).