cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Using User-Specific Fields in the Inspection Plan Operation

cristin_charbonneau
Participant
0 Kudos

Hi experts!

I have a requirement to QC a material. In the QC world this material has 2 flavours (flavour A and flavour B - both must be tested) but in SAP it might be a single material number. In reporting I will need to separate the 2 out. The testing for both flavours is exactly the same.

We've played with manufacturer part number but it doesn't look like it will work. We'll be manually creating our lots and the materials will be very basic (for now - we don't actually have these materials in SAP yet but have a vision to inventory them in the future).

In the operation details of the inspection plan there are user-specific fields and I am wondering if I can somehow tag the operation to separate the two. The SAP help describes the use of this funtionalilty as "User-defined field in which you can maintain indicators for reports."

The problem is I cannot figure out where to pull this information back out. I have tried QAPO but it only tells me which user-specific set I am using and not the value of the checkbox field I have selected in the operation.

Am I on the wrong track completely?

Thanks in advance,

Cristin

Accepted Solutions (1)

Accepted Solutions (1)

former_member42743
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Table PLPO contains the actual values. Your value is probably in field USR10 or USR11.

Since you only have two flavors, and you say that otherwise the inspection is identical, why don't you simply include a qualitative MIC for this with the choice of flavors? It would be easy to add additional flavors to the catalog in the future if needed. The tester would select the flavor as a test result. You can also set it up as a batch characteristic. That would allow batch determination by flavor as well if you wanted to set those up by customer.

Then you can use standard reports like CL30n, or the batch cockpit to report results. If you have already have custom reports they are probably already written then to pull a qualitative result. Maybe you add the ability to use a characteristic in the selection parameters and you just use the flavor characteristic as a qualifier for your reports.

FF

cristin_charbonneau
Participant
0 Kudos

I guess I am hoping for more from PLPO. All I can see in USR11 is an 'x' saying it's active but not the actual text that I attributed to it. I was hoping I could access that. Not really sure how it would help though. The user would have to select the appropriate task list in order for me to use the user-specific value anyway.

I have yet to work with batches. I guess I need to jump in there now

I am considering using a MIC but wondered if it would make the ABAPer crazy trying to pull together the report. I already am asking for the results of MICs to be reported based on what material, MIC status, inspection pt valuation and one of 2 possible date ranges (one being a search of another MIC that is being made to behave like a date, it's status, etc). I thought that on top of asking all that if it is material xyz then additionally checking the value of yet another MIC abc to see what flavor it is might be a bit much.

The report needs to calculate mean, min, max, median and standard deviation of the results tested in a given month... kind of like QS28 on steroids (except QS28 isn't giving me the statistics for the inspection pts) but formatted to have signature blocks and logos.

Because we aren't ready to inventory the materials maybe we could tag the flavour on to the material number and have 2 materials for now.

Cristin

former_member42743
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

I would try to put flexibly into the report upfront. I always try to avoid specifying specific mic's in any report. What I would try to do is give a selection field for a mic. Let the user use the drop down to search and select for the proper mic. For a specific report type you can provide system wide variants for the users that fill in the right mic number for them if you want. Once the mic is selected, you cam have the report pop up the catalog codes for the qualitative mic's and allow a user to select one. For quants, provide a lower and upper spec field.

If you have more then one mic, (like your date field), just allow the report to have 2-5 fields so yup can select values for multiple mic's.

Don't worry about bothering the programmers. Your paying them. It's like not wanting to call the fire department cause it's late and you might wake them up.

Besides, really good programmers like a challenge.

FF

cristin_charbonneau
Participant
0 Kudos

Thank you both for your suggestions.

FF - I completely agree with building as much flexibility as possible into reports. Sadly for this one it is not possible. The users will not be making any selections with the exception of Plant and one of the 2 possible date ranges. All the magic has to happen behind the scenes and pop out the other end as a formatted report for printing and signature. Maybe I should be referring to it as a form?

We are planning to use a custom table to identify which materials to include on this report, their corresponding MICs for which the calculations are to be calculated, the text of the acceptance criteria, etc. This is I guess where my problem comes in because I have to somehow distinguish results of MIC abc for both flavours of my material. It was [marginally] simpler when we thought each material would have its own number!

I can send you a screen shot to further illustrate if you are interested

Cristin

former_member42743
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Instead of the custom table have you looked at using material classification 001 for holding that info? SAP provides BAPI's to access the classification data so that shouldn't be hard for a programmer.

Sure.. I think you might already know where to send it. Be happy to look a it.

FF

Answers (1)

Answers (1)

Former Member
0 Kudos

If you procure different flavors from different vendors you may be able to use u2018dependant characteristicsu2019 function in QM

See attached link -

http://wiki.sdn.sap.com/wiki/display/PLM/SameParameters-DifferentSpecifications