Activity Reason in service contract (CRM 7.0)

[rpetrulis]

Hi Colleagues,

We're upgrading CRM 5.0 to CRM 7.0.

In CRM 5.0 users used CIC0 to edit service contracts and there were a button to display business activity fields related to the contract. Among them, activity reason. This is possible since in transaction type configuration for service contract (BUS2000112), you can add further business object as substructure (BUS2000126).

This configuration remains available in CRM 7.0. The problem is that we could not add activity reason in Service Contract's details view. It's not available by standard, and even trying to extend the view we are not able to fill the SERVICE_OS structure in CRM_ORDER_MAINTAIN via BADI ORDER_SAVE.

We were even not able to add this structure via BAPI in our migration process.
Therefore I wonder if activity structure are supported as subobject in service contract in CRM 7.0.

I really apreciate if anyone have experience or suggestions related to this issue.

Please, DO NOT answer anything related to S/4 Hana Customer Management. We know about CRM 7.0 end of maintenance, but this discussion is NOT on the table as per customer decision.

Best regards,
Renato Petrulis

[Robert-Peter]

HI @rpetrulis 

There are multiple options you have to implement a similar behaviour then in 5.0.
The first one is going to be a pure WebUI development. You likely need to enhance the UI component/view manually (e.g., BTADMINH, BTOrderDetails, or similar) and bind the Activity Reason to the correct model node if it's not standard. Make sure: The context node is bound to the correct BOL/GenIL model. The related enhancement set is correctly assigned in your customizing. 

The other way, is rather a work-around with a Z-field, and it needs to be analysed if your only goal is to store something like an Activity Reason. If so, consider creating a Z field directly on the contract header, especially if: You don’t need full Business Activity process logic. You're only using a small portion of the activity’s data model. 

Another question: Can you reconsider the use of business activity as subobject? There would be alternatives around that.

That are the ideas that come to mind for now. Feel free to direct message me to discuss that more in detail.

Best, Rob