| Reply from Typewriter on Jun 23 at  1:10 AM                                         | Earlier the requirement for availability check was different (i.e. no availability check needed), in the To Be scenario the requirement is that availability check should take place for particular sales document types. 
 Thus the configuration settings have to be changed.
 
 1. In MMR, the checking group (or availability check) has to be changed. So that availability check at MMR (material master record) should be activated.
 2. At schedule line category level, the availability check can be activated / deactivated as per requirement.
 3. Assign schedule line category (that has availability check activated) to ZWRS (warranty replacement),ZTRD(Transit damage)
 and Assign schedule line category (that has availability check deactivated) to the other sales document types which do not need availability check.
 
 A very helpful link:
 http://sapdocs.info/sap/sd-related-topics/availability-check-atp-transfer-of-requirement-tor/
 
 
 |  |  |  | ---------------Original Message--------------- From: suresh Kalvakuri
 Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 5:58 AM
 Subject: availibility check is to be carried based on Sales document type
 
 Hi All,
 
 At present there is no availability check in business process and as per the configuration setting in checking group we have activated no check filed, that is reason in process availability check is not considering at sales order and delivery level .
 
 Further information on present scenario, they have different documents types like ZDOM,ZEXP,ZWRS,ZTRD , hence there is no availability check for these documents types and depends upon user requirements client will assign the material to delivery document(either partial (or)fully) and deliver the material.
 
 Now client is asking for document types like ZWRS (warranty replacement),ZTRD(Transit damage) , if stock is available for same material system should automatically assign the stocks to these sales document types.
 
 Please let me know whether it is possible (or) not?
 
 Thanks for the answer,
 
 sss
 | 
 
 |    				   			Reply to this email to post your response.   				   			__.____._ |                    	   _.____.__ | 
  
No comments:
Post a Comment