Issue with calculation of Marks (Grades/Base value)

[Former Member]

Hi Team,

We are facing trouble with calculation of the total grades. We are unable to get the Total Score / Pass Fail  properly. Our template is as given in the Attachment.

Our appraisal Template has ‘Total Marks’ as the top appraisal type under which we have ‘Mid Term Exam’ of 100 marks of which the pass mark is 40 and the ‘Final Term Exam’ is of 300 marks which has a passing mark of 200 .The passing mark for the module is 240.

We have tried all possible configurations from our side like giving base values, conversion and result scales in Key figures and a host of other permutations and combinations but are unable to get the right calculation.

Request your advice for the proper set up of scales /base values for the above mentioned scenario.

Note: The output we are getting is the same,whatever be the weightages we are giving to the Appraisal types.

Regards,

Nivedita.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Nivedita,

Did you try this http://scn.sap.com/message/10939905#10939905 ?

Regards,

Prabhat Singh

[Former Member]

Hi Prabhat,

Thanks for your reply. We will surely check it out.

Regards,

Nivedita

[Former Member]

Hi Prabhat and Team,

Thanks.The issue given in the link you've provided relates to conversion of Quantity to Quality.

Our case is a bit different.We need the addition of Quantity to Quantity.

The requirement is as follows:

• The following is the Appraisal Template we have used:(refer Figure 1 of attachment)
• The Key figure details of GCAA and GCAL is as given in Figure 2 .The Result scale as well as the values for the scale is given in Figure 3.
• In PIQSMFU the marks the that we have given out off a total of 50 are as follows:Drawing = 20 , Sessional = 40,The Total Marks should now be 60..but we get it as 40 !!

The above is the issue. If any of you have faced a similar scenario, do share what you did to overcome the problem  (We did try attaching the doc. but could not..hence inserting it as an image.)

Regards

Nivedita

[Former Member]

Nivedita,

  I was trying to explain how it works. Whether is Qualtiy or quantity scale. SAP works with normvalue. It calculates the norm value multiply by weightage. I don't see weightage in your template. Here is screen shot How to set-it up.

Ask your developer to debug HRPIQ00SI2_GRAD(calculate) implementation.  He/She will be able to trace it and tell you exactly How it is working in your scenario and Where are you off.

Regards,

Prabhat Singh

[Former Member]

Hi Team,

Taking this further, we did put the requisite base values. The scenarios that we have worked on are:

Scenario 1:

Total: 100

Written: 60

Sessional: 40

• Passing marks out of 100= 40
• Passing marks out of 60=20
• Passing marks out of 40=10

So accordingly we have put the base value using the excel sheet by SAP and have maintained base value as follows: (system base value = 70000)

Scale 100 Base Value= 40000

Scale 60 Base Value= 55000

Scale 40 Base Value= 60000

Output:

• Calculation of marks is not happening properly
• Pass/ Fail indicator of Written and Sessional is shown properly.
• 
  

Scenario 2: (marks same as above)

Here we are not putting the base values

Output:

• Calculation of marks is proper
• Pass/Fail is not happening properly

We are now stuck with this problem.So as standard will this work or we need to apply any rules to get the required result??

In scenarios where we needed conversion from Quantity to Quality scale is working fine as you had explained in the earlier message.

Regards

Nivedita and Ramesh.

[dirk_pape3]

Hi Nivedita and Ramesh,

it would be easier to help you, if you provide more information. This includes your

• System Scale LL "Lowest Passing Grade"
• and the complete definitions of your scales
• definition of your GCAL keyfigure (maybe it has been changed from SAP-standard?)

There exist different approaches to achieve what you want.

For instance: You are not forced to use GCAL as keyfigure but can implement your own calculation just by adding normvalues. In this case you can define the top result scale as you did and your "subappraisal" scales just starting from the same base value having the same increment per point as the to result scale.

If you are indeed forced to use GCAL - maybe because you want to use the 100 points or 300 points scales on other modules as well appearing as top results and not as sub results, you should provide the info mentioned above.

Also: From your description it is not clear, whether the top appraisal should be passed, if one of the sub appraisals are not passed (e. g. mid term exam 100 => passed and final term exam 150 => failed, total = 250 => passed or failed?).

Dirk.

[Former Member]

Hi Dirk,

• We are using 70000 as the System Scale LL”Lowest Passing Grade”
• For  the present example, the definition of scale is as follows:

               Total: 100

              Written:60

              Sessional:40

• Passing marks out of 100= 40
• Passing marks out of 60=20
• Passing marks out of 40=10

The scales have been defined for the total marks as well for each of the marks as
divisions. Refer the figure below for our configurations on Appraisal Template, Key Figures and the related Scales

• For GCAL key figure, the Result scale has been maintained as Max 100 Linear Quantity. However, while calculation, we have tried assigning other scales as well to GCAL .Also, in the present template we are not using GCAL. We tried using that as well.

• In our case, the top appraisal should be passed  only if he has passed in the sub-divisions (lower level appraisal types).

Thank You and the Team  for the time taken to address the issues.The issue is not sorted though

Regards

Nivedita and Ramesh

[dirk_pape3]

Hi Nivedita and Ramesh,

for me it seems, saying "top appraisal should be passed only if he has passed in the sub-divisions" your requirements are the following:

IF both subdivision are passed (regarding the subdivision's scale threshold to be passed) THEN points of the subdivisions should be added and written to the top level type of the appraisal template yielding PASS or FAIL with respect to the top level scale (resp. the result scale of the keyfigure you use on the top level).

(Only for completeness: Since this is an incomplete case distinction, you should decide whether you leave top appraisal blank or whether you write less points than the PASS-threshold into it, if one of the subdivisions are failed).

In contrast to this requirement: What you are trying to do is using a keyfigure calculation a "weighted mean" of norm values (this is the semantics of the PI calculation GRAD, which is assigned to your keyfigures) to accomplish the same result as an "add the points of the two subdivisions".

I am sure the problem with this is, that you have a combination of two "weightings" which interfere in your formula. The second weighting is obviously the one stored in the appr. template, the 1st one is hidden in the transformations of your sublevel scales.

I would not do it this way, because even if you find the correct mathematical formula to set up your scales this would be hard to be comprehend in the future, because of the different semantics of the keyfigure calculation you use an the required calculation you want to achieve.

What I would do:

1. setup all the scales you use, as you want them for final results, hence having the right max number of points and the correct threshold for passing.
2. don't use index calculation GRAD in the keyfigure you assign to the top appraisal, but implement the BAdI for PI calculation with an own implementation, which just does what the requirement says: "IF both subdivision are passed (regarding the subdivision's scale threshold to be passed) THEN points of the subdivisions should be added ELSE <whatever you decided>"
3. When saying "points" in the above sentence, I mean you should use the grade symbols and not the normvalues in the addition, as the normvalues of your scales are not "compatible" with each other.
4. You then have to reconvert the sum of points back to a normvalue after the addition.

I hope this helps you with your solution.

Dirk

[Former Member]

Hi Dirk,

Thanks.We shall work based on the comments you have given and hopefully our issue would get resolved.

Thanks to Rob and Prabhat for your comments as well.

Regards

Ramesh.