cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Updating employee in asset master

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi

There are several laptops and mobile phones which are given to employees. I need to track employee-wise assets. So i need to update employee name in asset master

But here there is no HR module so personnel numbers are not available. Employees are created as a vendors only.

I thought of evaluation group. But updating evaluation groups everytime at the time of addition / exit of new employees would be a configuration.

So let me know how this requirement can be fulfilled.

Accepted Solutions (1)

Accepted Solutions (1)

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi there,

You could use the evaluation group field - 4 or 8 character and you could open the transaction for direct maintenance in your productive system, so that you don`t need to transport every time changes occure in your employee structure.

Hope this helps,

KR

Severina

Answers (2)

Answers (2)

ajaycwa1981
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi Meenu

I have seen many companies in this scenario...What they do is even though they dont have HR Module, they still create Personnel No.s in HR.... You dont need any separate license for that... Just a bare minimum settings are required to create Personnel No.s

Asset Master has field Personnel No available in the screen layout... So, you dont need to do any Z development in this option

Option 2 - Use AIST002 and add the field Vendor No in the asset master as said above...

Option 3 - Use a Stat IO or WBS created with Personnel No as the IO / WBS No...

Easiest is option 3, but it is a work around

Moderate is option 1 - This is Std solution... You can also Personnel No in lot of FI postings related to employees.. Eg: To track their vehicle expenses or Mobile expenses, etc...

Complex one is option 2.... This is a Z Dev....

br, Ajay M

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi.

May be you'd use 1.vendor in asset master data(add this field via enh. AIST0002), 2.or you can use Time depend data, eg WBS element as employee. As for me 2 is better, because exists in standard reports