Skip to Content
author's profile photo Former Member
Former Member

Different COGS between PGI FI Posting and Billing COPA Posting

Dear Experts,

I have an issue regarding different COGS between PGI FI Posting and Billing COPA Posting, here are my condition :

1. MTO Scenario with valuated stock and sales order is not a cost object

2. Sales Order costing is done when sales order created (VA01) and automatically marked (Costing ID B) in the requirement class.

3. EK01 is passed to the sales order item condition, along with other standard condition like VPRS and PR00.

4. Material cost estimate is configured in order to get breakdown of COGS while transfering COGS to COPA, the costing key is configured to take sales order cost estimate (Y02).

5. Since we also have a MTS Scenario, i also configured material cost estimate another costing key to get current standard cost estimate (Y01).

6. Both costing key is assigned to material type, and i already did simulation in billing transfer analysis for MTO the system took Y02, while MTS scenario the system took Y01.

and my problem are :

1. When i did the PGI for MTO sales order valuated stock, the system post an accounting document for COGS and took value from EK01 condition type (which is this correct).

2. When i did the billing to the customer, the system post an accounting document (for reveneue recognition) and also COPA document (for COGS), but when i checked to COPA Document created the system took value from VPRS condition type which is not correct because there is different value between VPRS and EK01.

Question :

1. Is this standard behavior ? because i think there will be difference between COPA and FI for COGS.

2. Is there any configuration that i miss? since i am new in CO module.

Pls share your experience regarding this issue..



Add a comment
10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

Related questions

1 Answer

  • Best Answer
    author's profile photo Former Member
    Former Member
    Posted on Jul 27, 2012 at 06:34 AM


    I guess in KE4I SD condition VPRS is mapped to a CO-PA value field but EK01 is not. So the CO-PA doc. contains the VPRS value but not the EK01 information. From my point of view there are 2 ways to fix this:

    1: Map EK01 to a CO-PA value field (maybe the same as VPRS) and ensure 100% that MTO billing docs contain only EK01 condition but not VPRS, whereas MTS billing docs contain VPRS as before but no EK01.

    2: If you can't ensure this at the source (billing doc), map EK01 and VPRS to different value fields thus you will have 2 values in MTO case (the EK01 value and the VPRS value), only VPRS in MTS case. Use COPA0005 enhancement (include ZXKKEU08) to clear VPRS value in case EK01 is not empty.

    At the end, the MTO COGS are shown in the value field where EK01 is mapped, MTS COGS in the value field where VPRS is mapped.

    In COPA0005 you can also bring both the values to one value field which might be easier when creating CO-PA form based reports.

    BR Christian

    Add a comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

    • Former Member Ajay Maheshwari

      Hi ajay,

      sorry for the late reply, just had a busy weekend 😀

      i got your point, but beside of COPA enhancement as suggested by christian i have plan to ask SD consultant to write the code on their pricing routine so VPRS will copy EK01 value if condition EK01 exist in pricing procedure. it mean the mapping from EK01 to COPA value field is no longer necessary right?



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.