Skip to Content

Hi,

I have made an attempt to write down some of the critical QM steps required during Cutover exercise as a sub-set of overall cutover activities. There can be a combination of scenarios available in the real life business process, where Materials have Q-stock (without QM implemented), Materials are in blocked stock (Without UD), materials are in Unrestricted use, quality and blocked stock, etc. It’s necessary to test the processes explained in the attached document and get business signoff, before you can go ahead with the suggested processes. At times, cutover are done directly by clients, and you can help your customer by providing your test results on these lines and prepare better during cutover.

As suggested by many co-consultants in QM forum, I am adding the details in simplified form. Hope it helps a larger audience – (Please also do read the discussion thread at the bottom and there is also some valid interesting views which may help too)

Cutover Stock Migration with QM approach form As-Is to To-Be system

Validate the below configuration nodes

Quality Management => Quality Inspection => Inspection Lot Creation => Inspection for Goods Movements =>

1. Deactivate Quality Inspection for a Movement Type – Check the MvT 561 =>

a. If business wishes to have MvT 561 insp managed, then this should be ACTIVE. Material should also have inspection type “05” added to it.

MvT 561.PNG

 
b. Once the stock is uploaded, an Inspection lot will be created for this MvT 561, for materials having inspection type 05 added in QM view.

c. Upload inspection lot results through data migration activities and then put mass UD with QA16.

d. If business do not wish to have inspection lots created for MvT 561 for all materials, then select “QM not Active” checkbox, do not add “05” inspection type to the material and upload it unrestricted stock.

2. Movement Type/Update Control/Inspection Lot Origin – Check MvT 563 for inspection Lot Origin.

For example –

  MvT 563.PNG

a. If there are materials in Quality due to existing QM processing – then you should add insp type “05” to the material in To-Be system. Please do not do UD to it.

b. If materials were not Q-managed, but stock was in quality due to logistic movement – then do not add inspection type “05” to these materials while stock upload. Post stock validation, move the material for Q-stock to unrestricted stock by MvT 321.

          NOTE: If the materials are ‘digital signature managed’ with QM auth profile added in material master QM view, then you may need to do           an enhancement with QA16 + QA11 to put digital signature at background for these materials during UD. Alternatively, you can activate QM auth           profile after cutover activities are posted.

c. Post Cutover – Once the initial stock is uploaded, UD is made for all the inspection lots as “A” or “R”, proper stock posting happened successfully, then you should deactivate the inspection type “05” form the migrated materials and revert these cutover specific configuration.

3. In case if you have some Q-stock in your As-Is system

     i. Move these stock to To-Be system as Q-Stock only. Use MB1C/MvT 563. You can have this material as Q managed + Add 05 inspection type to                material master.

     ii. Plan for migrating the Quality results form As-Is system to To-Be system, through data migration approach.

     iii. Do not put UD before stock validation for these migrated material/batch stock.

     iv. If the materials were not Q-managed, but stock is in quality stock, then make a list of these materials. Move the Q-Stock to unrestricted use stock using      MvT 321, but do it after stock validation.

4. If some materials are available in unrestricted use stock in As-Is system

     a. Segregate these materials, which are Q managed and which are not.

     b. Those are Q -managed, use MB1C/MvT 561 & put UD = A.

     c. Those materials are not Q managed, you can use MB1C/MvT 561 for initial entry post cutover. Do not add inspection type “05” for these materials      during cutover.

5. Those materials are in blocked stock in As-Is system

     a. Segregate these materials as Q-managed and Q – not managed.

     b. If material is already Q-managed in As-Is system, then upload these stock using MB1C/MvT 563 + UD = R.

     c. Upload inspection lot results through data migration activities and then put mass UD with QA16.

     d. If material is not Q-managed, then upload the stock using MB1C/MvT 565.

          NOTE: Form QM side, for the newly created inspection lots, before putting UD = A or R, user might wish to copy the inspection results from           previous system, which you may also need to facilitate with data migration approach.

For the migrated finished goods stock, you can create Inspection report form QA32 for the inspection type 05.

I will like to get your feedback, inputs and guidance to improve this document which will be beneficial to a larger audience. Please keep updating it if this helps a bit.

Thanks for reading this and feedback,

Arijit

To report this post you need to login first.

12 Comments

You must be Logged on to comment or reply to a post.

  1. Craig S

    While the processes you listed could work, I would not recommend them for a cutover.

    SAP has a built in process for this using an 0800 inspection type and the QA08 transaction.  Have you looked at this?

    The downside to your process is that if any corrections are required after the inventory loading, then you need to deal with open inspection lots.

    By using the QA08 process and 0800 inspection types, you don’t create the inspeciton lots until after all inventory is loaded, reconciled and validated by the client.

    Craig

    (0) 
    1. Arijit Banerjee Post author

      Hi Craig,

      Thanks for critically reviewing it. Appreciate it!!

      Yes, I know this mass processing tx and we have used it for adding missing insp types for new materials in our project. 

      Below are my thoughts linked with some practical experience during cutover stock migration:

      1. The main Idea for linking the Material Document with inspection lots, is to not only have accuracy after stock posting, but get these details validated through Excel exercise for the processing files only. This is easy than directly posting the stock and then validating it there.

      2. One critical activity linked to cutover stock migration is to link the inspection lot results for future use. For example, if we need to move some blocked stock (MB1C/MvT 565) we are NOT creating the logistic transfer posting inspection lots of type 0800 at that time, these results are not copied into the system. So though the stocks are posted, the results are not posted for validation.

      3. In case after Cutover and Go-Live if you immediately need to get a QC for the migrated stocks, you can generate it with QC22, if the results are posted too along with the stock migration. Normally this service window is small enough and so it becomes tricky to have everything together.

      4. This approach suggests to have a well-defined segregation of materials which are Q-managed and which are not, Among the Q managed stock where are the stocks lying, among the non-Q managed materials where are the stocks lying, etc. So analyzing the file dumps becomes easy for business through excel validation.

      5. We are suggesting to validate the updated stocks corresponding to MvT and then put UD for 2nd level validation. In case if there are issues in the upload, normal document cancellation will also cancel the linked insp lots, and no impact on inventory as such.

      Lastly, the approach I have written I one of the approaches we can adopt and there can be more sound approaches available to support these activities, based on business needs. Let me know your thoughts again.

      Thanks,

      Arijit

      (0) 
      1. Craig S

        I had responded to your comments before but then had an internet **** and lost it all.  Seeing your comment below I figured I try again.  First, there are many ways to “skin a cat” in SAP.  A lot depends on the business and the project requirements.  Few ways are really wrong.

        1. In the process I described, the inventory is still usually extractred to Excel files and reviewed in Excel.  But usually the process is very time constrained. I.e. inventory usually can’t be extracted until the legacy systems are shut down and the new systems are brought up.  Usually 48-72 hrs tops. In large projects, (i.e. tens of thousand records), verification and corrections can be a challenge using spreadsheets and they need to be split up and reviewed by many people than brought back togther and loaded.  The extraction/conversion/loading should be a repeatively tested process.  Sometimes, if using an ABAP or LSMW, some field conversions are done in the load itself.  Once the data is loaded in SAP, hundreds of users could theorectially log in and verify a sampling of data in their particular locations and warehouses and report back error to a data team that can determine if the result is a systemic error in the programing/conversion or a one-off error by a user or data team member.  Errors can then still be corrected in SAP without the interference of inspection lots yet.  I have yet to see an inventory load that was 100% correct.  Maybe we had bad folks on the project doing inventory!!!  But most of my porjects have involved tens of thousand inventory record loads.  I just recently had my smallest load of only a few thousand batches.  When loading 100,000 to 1,000,000 batches, it would unusal to not have some disrepancies happen.

        2.  I’m not clear on what you mean in item two.  Loading resuts is a totally different exercise.  If you want an inspection lot created for every batch you are loading, then I would probably load everything to quality and then have a program to load results agains them and run auto UD’s to post the stock out.  That can be a massive undertaking in any system and I don’t think it matters how the inventory is loaded.  Both approaches can generated inspection lots.  Most of the projects that I have been on issued COA results from the batch record, not inspection lots.  So it wasn’t necessary to hae

        3. In legacy, these stocks are in QI.  I.e. I’m loading QI to QI.  Again, it sounds like you are talking a scenario where the COA results all come from an inspection lot.  In that case, it doesn’t mater how the lots are created, the issue is getting the results data in against the lots and UD’d.

        4. Again, we still usualy have an Excel step.  So I’m not sure there is any advantage one way or the other.  QI stock still goes to QI stock.

        5. I think this is the same either way.  We still load the inventory by MvT so that would be no different then what you’re suggesting.  We jus don’t create the lnsp. lots when we load to QI at that step. We do it later during inspection type activation.

        You are correct, there is no “right” way.  It’s what is right for your project.

        Craig

        (0) 
        1. Arijit Banerjee Post author

          Hi Craig,

          Thanks for your comments again.

          Well, this time this approach has worked well for us with medium batch load (not like your heavy batch loads). May be if we get a bigger load sometimes in future, we will propose both the approaches to clients for business validation.

          Thanks,

          Arijit

          (0) 
  2. Arijit Banerjee Post author

    Hi Everyone,

    Apart form Craig’s suggestions I have not received any further comments or concerns. Please can you also share your thoughts as well on the approach provided, to improve it’s contents. Will appreciate your contribution on this regards.

    Thanks,

    Arijit

    (0) 
    1. Martin Hinderer

      I would just advise you to move the content from the attached XML file directly into the SCN space. This makes it easier for everyone else to work on the document.

      (0) 
        1. Martin Hinderer

          I am just proposing that you should post the content directly here on the SCN document page, and not have it in an attachment. This makes it easier to maintain and also to read it, and it will most likely also be better indexed by the search.

          Regards

          MH

          (0) 
          1. Nitin Jinagal

            Nice suggestion Martin. Yes Arijit, you should keep it open directly. Posting it using an attachment may distract some users. There are users who will land up here and will show interest to read it but may not bother to open the attachment.

            Just post it as any normal SCN document 🙂

            ntn

            (0) 
            1. Arijit Banerjee Post author

              Hi Nitin & Martin,

              I have added it as simple document so that users can go through it in details. Added one more comment like user should also check the useful feedback shared in the discussion thread too.

              Thanks for your advice.

              Arijit

              (0) 

Leave a Reply