SAP PPM - Task Severity does not work - Mistake in formula?

[Daniel]

Dear Community,

actually, I struggle with a PPM task severity and I hope someone knows how to resolve this issue.

I´d like to raise a severity icon in case a task is on time.

Please take a look into the screenshot below.

The task "Task released + on time" has the status 'I1701' and 'I1710'. The calculated "Latest Finish Date" is 09/29/2022. Today is 09/15/2022.

According to my severity formula the task should raise the severity:

SCH_FINISH_LATE >= SYST-DATUM AND ACTUAL_START = '00.00.0000' AND SYSTEM_STATUS = 'I1701' AND SYSTEM_STATUS = 'I1710'

09/29/2022 >= 09/15/2022 AND ACTUAL_START = 09/13/2022 AND SYSTEM_STATUS = 'I1701' AND SYSTEM_STATUS = 'I1710'

Is there any mistake within this formula?

Thank you very much!

Warm regards,

Daniel

[pacoginer]

Hi Daniel.

At first glance, no error can be seen.

But you can check if the formula is being taken into account. It may be a clue that helps you.

Select a task and press the button " Status Management"

Here you can check if the formula is being valued.

If the formula does not appear, it would be necessary to review the customizing.

I hope you can find the solution ASAP.

Paco.

[Daniel]

Dear Paco,

first of all, thank you for your fast response and the hint for having a look into the 'Status Management' function! That helped me to understand the severity logic faster.

Meanwhile I was able to solve this issue by having a look from a different point of view.

Obviously there is an inconsistency within the severity check when the object (e. g. Task) has the status combination " SYSTEM_STATUS <> 'I1700/Created' AND SYSTEM_STATUS = 'I1701/Released' AND SYSTEM_STATUS = 'I1710/In Process' ".

With the following formula it works:

( SCH_FINISH_LATE >= SYST-DATUM AND ( SYSTEM_STATUS <> 'I1700' AND SYSTEM_STATUS <> 'I1702' AND SYSTEM_STATUS <> 'I1703' ) )

I excluded the system status 'Finished' and 'Canceled' and did not include the status 'Released' and 'In Process'.

Thanks again!

Warm regards,

Daniel

Proof, that formula works [ 😉 ]: