Update Priority Type ARTPR for existing Work Orders

[sebastian_lenartowicz]

Greetings Experts, Gurus and SAP Sages!

We have several Order Types, say, (PM01, PM02, PM03, PM04, PM05) defined in the system. These Order Types use the default Priority Type "PM", with priorities (1,2,3,4). Now, for some of the Order Types, say (PM01, PM02, PM03), we want to change the Priority Type to another Priority Type "ZM", with Priorities (H,M,L). We make the necessary changes in SPRO under "Define Priorities".

Result: New (PM01, PM02, PM03) Orders are created with the "ZM" Priority type. But all the pre-existing ones are saved with the "PM" Priority and some of those are still being processed by the business.

Issue: We are facing a difficulty with the cut-over,because although we are able to change the Priority on the existing Orders, the new (H,M,L) Priorities do not exist in the legacy Priority Type. Therefore, we are unable to set the new Priorities on the existing Orders - which is what the business require.

It seems that the BAPI ALM_ORDER_MAINTAIN can't be used to change the Priority Type, as the update structure bapi_alm_order_headers_up does not have this field. I also do not see any IW* user exit that has the ability to update this.

Also, curiously, in the SPRO node "Field Selection for Order Header Data and Reference Object" there is a field setting for CAUFVD-ARTPR, but it does not seem to influence IW32 (so we can't change the Orders manually or via batch input). Is there some obscure way to make this field updateable?

Any ideas on how could we tackle this other than temporarily adding the Priorities (1,2,3,4,H,M,L) to the Priority Type "PM" until all legacy Orders are completed (which is a bit sloppy and may cause issues later on when we remove the Priorities again)?

[rakesh_mane · Accepted solution]

Hello 

As you said temporarily adding the Priorities (1,2,3,4,H,M,L) to the Priority Type "PM" until all legacy Orders are completed.This would be safest option i also think.

Br

Rakesh

[sebastian_lenartowicz]

Thank you Peter & Rakesh.

I think we'll play it the safe way and just add the required Priorities to the other Priority Type temporarily - we were considering a database update, but it seems a tad too bold in a Production environment (although I'm nearly certain that it would solve the issue cleanly...)

[peter_atkin]

Sebastian,

You could try updating this value in the respective database table (AFIH) - though this isn't recommended..

PeteA