This document explains the purpose of maintaining “Vendor Number Ranges” while maintaining parameters in F110 in the “Additional Log” tab and the difference it can make if the same is not maintained.

SAP FI supporting team receives few tickets on Automatic Payment program (SAP Transaction Code-F110), reporting that there are few invoice line items in the Payment Proposal falls into exception with error codes (for e.g. 001,003,006,007,16 & 98). There are nearly 63 error codes defined in SAP, and the error codes 007 is very generic and difficult to identify the reason for those invoice line items that falls into exception.  The error message instructs to refer to the job log, but still the log messages are very deceptive.

   

What is missing?

When the BU/user executes Automatic Payment Program, usually the parameters/options in the “Additional log” section were ignored, because users were not trained to understand the benefit of maintaining the parameters in the “Additional log” section.

Case 1: When Vendor number range in Additional Log tab is not maintained






Case 2: When Vendor number range in Additional Log tab is maintained


If the “Vendor Number ranges” are not maintained in the F110 “Additional Log” section,

  1. Affects Consultants Productivity– When the “Vendor Number Ranges” are not maintained in the F110 Additional Log section and if particular invoice line items is missing some information as per the configuration in SAP, then the system throws the error messages and 007 is not very clear. Once the ticket is assigned to the respective FICO Consultant, then the same scenario needs to be replicated in the Quality system. Sometimes the same vendor and related master data settings will be missing in Quality. In such cases, Consultants need to create a similar vendor with the same settings as in Production system and replicate the invoice line items. It may consume much time depends on the source of invoice/Down Payment Request (e.g. whether the invoice/down payment requests are received from core FI module or through MM Module via Purchase Orders).
  2. User’s knowledge is not enhanced– If the users were trained to maintain the “Vendor Number Ranges” in the F110 transaction, then the error can be corrected by the user, unless if there is any configuration/setting is required in IMG.

Proposed Solution:

The “Vendor Number Ranges” in the F110 “Additional Log” field to be made mandatory, so that BU/User cannot create the Proposal and the system throws the error message, instructing to maintain “Vendor Number Ranges”.

To report this post you need to login first.

3 Comments

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

  1. Jan Fanta

    Hi,

    I do not know what is purpose of this document.

    All of these are standard procedures.

    Errors also. Like not maintained payment method, missing data in testing system….

    Analyse proposal/pmnt run without payment log specification will be hell of course.

    proposal / payment run is always running thru document level at the and it is not so much necessary to specify vendor selection in log specification. But whatever.

    For me this document just underlines how important is to train users well.

    Anyway appreciate you spend your energy here.

    Jan

    (0) 
  2. Nilton Duque

    Hi Sathyaraj Rajagopal thanks a lot for your efforts and the document to share knowledge and expertise. Well done.

    Please, let me share a point of view.

    I have seen a lot of misunderstandings about additional log in the last 16 years.

    First: why it is called “additional log”? Answer: the proposal run is a log itself and presents the most commom errors to be corrected. When you double click in a document with error, the system presents in almost all cases an explanation.

    My understanding is:

    – For a consultant: additional log is a very usefull tool in the time of project for test purposes and so on – no question about.

    – For a user:

    a. lets suppose that a user execute F110 in a daily basis paying about 300 invoices or more.

    b. it is correct to say that after a few weeks after go live, almost all the configuration and usability problems were solved.

    c. it is also corret to say that almost all execution of F110 will run without problems

    I used to instruct and train users to do the following script:

    1. run F110 without any additional log

    2. analyse the proposal run and solve all the problems in there, if any

    3. if there is left any complex problem in a document with error, decide:

    3.1 if you want to run F110 to pay all documents ok (left the error to deal after in a new F110 execution) or

    3.2 delete the proposal run, activate additional log only for vendor with problem, and then re-execute the proposal run. Analyse the “clean” additional log and correct the problem.

    The key to take decision is

    a) the volume of documents and

    2) the time frame to close the payments.

    Example: sometime it is worthwhile to pay 500 or more documents quickly and postpone a few (if any) instead of expend hours to deal with a few and risk to postpone the whole lot.

    In any scenario, it is fundamental to train the user in the analysis of additional log, totally agreed.

    In any scenario: it is useless to activate additional log for all the vendors, if additional log will only be used for a few documents, few vendors and only when a complex error occurs.

    And also, the additional log for all vendor will affect performance and get an extensive log for correct documents – i.e. = useless.

    Best regards,

    Nilton Duque.

    (0) 

Leave a Reply