Service Master Support in E-Sourcing/CLM

[katie_doody2]

Hi all, I was wondering if CLM has support for service masters now? We are trying to send the service master from CLM to ECC through PI using the standard integration scenario in IS_ERP_ES_Integration integration scenario . ECC seems to support service items but CLM does not. I found a blog which talks about a work around that used the group concept in clm to send the service items. I was wondering if there was anything new that would make this more "out of the box". Thanks, Katie

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Katie,

Support for Service Masters is currently targeted for the next release of CLM: Release 11.0.  Also, in CLM Release 10.0 we added support for publishing the Line Item Group Description in the XML payload sent to SAP ERP so that the service line customization described in the blog you referenced can be implemented a little easier.

Regards,

  Ed

[katie_doody2 · Accepted solution]

Thanks Ed, is there also an update to the pi sender and receiver messages for this? Is it a note?

Sincerely,

Katie

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Since it was only included in the 10.0 release, there is no SAP Note.  It is documented in the 10.0 Integration of SAP ERP and SAP Sourcing Configuraiton Guide Appendix section 6.3.8 Mapping of SAP Sourcing Master Agreement to SAP ERP Outline Agreement:

Please note that although the field is sent to PI in the standard 10.0  message from CLM, it requires a custom mapping in PI to send it to ERP as the name of the Outline Agreement Service Line Item as well as custom PI mapping changes to send all of the CLM line items in the CLM Line Item Group as the Outline Agreement Service Specification Lines.

[katie_doody2 · Accepted solution]

Hi Ed, we are on release 10.0 and the group name does not seem to be coming in the message. Do we need to do anything to activate this? It is not excluded.

Thanks,

Katie

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Katie,

No - you shouldn't need to do anything to activate this.

I just did a quick test with 2 line item groups.    It seems the name of the first line item group was in the message but the name of the second line item group was not.

Could you please create an SAP Support ticket for this.

Thanks,

  Ed

[katie_doody2 · Accepted solution]

Yes, I noticed that in my first test. My second test, it is not coming at all. I will raise an incident.

Thanks,

Katie

[katie_doody2 · Accepted solution]

Hi Ed, you are correct.The first  line item group comes in the message but not the subsequent.

Thanks,

Katie

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Thanks Katie... Development will provide a fix to include all of the line item groups in the message.

Regards,

  Ed

[katie_doody2 · Accepted solution]

Hi Ed, does this mean we can also enhance the following?

1) rfx ->clm interface

2) clm award -> ecc outline agreement

3) clm award -> ecc po

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Katie,

I believe that is correct.

For 1) rfx > clm interface: standard functionality should copy the line item groups/names from the rfx award to the clm agrement.

For 2) rfx award > ecc OA and 3) rfx award to ecc PO: the line item group names are placed in the XML payload when the award is published - but custom mappings are required like in the clm agreement to ecc OA publish.  I am not aware of a customer that has done the 2) and 3) customizations.  If you should attempt these enhancements and find any gaps, please let me know.

Thanks,

  Ed

[katie_doody2 · Accepted solution]

Hi Ed, I am just looking at the mapping for MM_ORDERS05_To_RFx and it looks like the clm message (MT_Rfx) does not have the same support for the group line item and service items? We were hoping to send the line item/service item structure throughout the whole process?

[katie_doody2 · Accepted solution]

Also, since this is a provided field, can I modify the mapping or do I need to make a customer copy of it? I ask because I made a copy and I am getting an error on one of the provided function's signature.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Katie,

You are correct about the RFQ > RFx message - it does not support a group line item with multiple service lines.  ECC actually throws an error on the RFQ if you try to do that and send it to Sourcing.  We are hoping to provide an enhancement in our next release (11.0) that will support this functionality.

Regarding your PI mapping modification question - sorry but I am not a PI expert.  Hopefully someone in the SCN community can provide the answer.

Regards,

  Ed

[katie_doody2 · Accepted solution]

Thanks, I resolved it. There was a space in one of the signature fields in the function.

So, it is really only clm award -> ecc outline agreement interface that is supported? I just need to set expectations. Any chance you could release that by the end of the month?

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Yes - only RFx award to ECC OA or PO and CLM agreement to ECC OA contain the line item group in the payload.  ECC RFQ > RFx does not.

Sorry but end of month is not possible .  Current target estimates for Rel. 11.0 are: Ramp-Up by end of 2016 and GA some time in the first half of 2017.

[katie_doody2 · Accepted solution]

Hi Ed, I am not clear on how BBP_ES_OA_UPDATE will use this new text field for grouping. Can you offer any insight?

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Katie,

Sorry but I am not an ABAP developer so I'm not really sure what has to be exactly done in BBP_ES_OA_UPDATE.  However, my understanding - based on a customer implementation of this customization - is that an experienced ABAP developer has to analyze BBP_ES_OA_UPDATE and then develop a BADI to create and group all of the CLM Agreement Service lines as Outline Agreement Service Spec Lines under the Outline Agreement Item Category D line item that was created from the CLM Line Item Group name that the CLM Agreement Service lines were grouped under.

Regards,

  Ed

[katie_doody2 · Accepted solution]

Hi Ed, we are just testing the basic integration. Have you seen this error?

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Katie,

You may need to upgrade your ERP instance.  This is from the ERP Sourcing Config Guide:

What enhancement package level is your integrated ERP instance?

[katie_doody2 · Accepted solution]

We are on 6.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Sorry - i'm not sure.  I don't recall seeing that error before.  You may want to take a look in the Sourcing/CLM application log to see if there is more information in the log regarding the error.  If not, please create a Support ticket.

[former_member190023 · Accepted solution]

Hi Katie, Ed,

If you go to Setup > Business System > your_ERP_business_system

in the Release dropdown you need to select the correct ERP release.

Service Items are supported starting with EHP 4.

Bogdan

[katie_doody2 · Accepted solution]

Hi Ed, I am wondering if there is the ability to change the default line item group value for the mapping of the sap erp rfq to sap sourcing rfp? I do not see display_group_name as an available fieldin the mapping.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Katie, I'm not aware of a way to do this - also, I haven't heard of a customer that has implemented the rfq > rfx flow for multiple service lines within a group as a customization  - so I'm not sure if it can even be done.  I believe the ECC rfq Save throws a hard error if you build a service line item with multiple service specification lines and try to send it to Sourcing.  I'm also not sure if the Sourcing rfx xml importer can handle a specific line item group.  The ERP Config guide specifies that the ERP integrated RFx Doc Type must be configured with the Create Default Line Item Group set to TRUE - so passing in a named specific line item group may not be possible.

[katie_doody2 · Accepted solution]

Hi Ed, we are taking a different approach and using the ERP line items and make these the line items in ESO. We would also like to have the default line item group have the same name as the line items. They would have no service items. I have been able to change the mapping to pass the line items in ecc as line items in ESO. I would like to have the default group to have the same name.

We would have only one line per group passing from ERP to ESO. The users that could add more items but this would be done in Esourcing.

Thanks,

Katie

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Katie, sorry but I am not aware of a way to do this via the current rfx xml importer.  It's defintely not a standard, supported capability.  The only thing I can think of is that the user may need to do it manually via Add Group and Reorder List buttons on the Line Items tab.

[former_member190023 · Accepted solution]

Hi Katie,

I had a quick look and I believe that the RFx processor can handle groups. (I could be also wrong )

You can test by adding a new element (if not existing) in the xml - for each line item - DISPLAY_GROUP and set it to your required value. (no more than 40 characters).

Another option which would surely work is to manage this part after the RFx import (via Script).

PS: Like Ed mentioned, neither of these options are standard or supported

Bogdan

[katie_doody2 · Accepted solution]

Thanks, I did add display_group_name and it is posting to Sourcing with no error but not changing the group. I know it is not supported and I am letting my lead know so that we most likely won't go this route. I just wanted to see if I could do it...understanding the risks and that we would have to do loads of testing to make sure there is no impact downstream. It will cause our business area to have to do much more work.

[former_member190023 · Accepted solution]

Hi Katie,

It has to be DISPLAY_GROUP, and not DISPLAY_GROUP_NAME.

Not sure if you tried both ...

Bogdan

[katie_doody2 · Accepted solution]

Hi Bogdan, I did and when I tried display_group, I got this error.

[former_member190023 · Accepted solution]

Hmm, is this a new Line Item or existing one?

Without the full stack trace I can't say for sure if it's the processor or some missing data. But by the looks of things it will require a lot more investigation time

Bogdan

[katie_doody2 · Accepted solution]

Thanks Bogdan,

I am trying to add this grouping to the pi message for the interface from erp rfq to rfp in Sourcing. So, it would be on the create of the rfp.

[katie_doody2 · Accepted solution]

Hi Ed, we have decided to do a poc on using the clm rest service for our rfp creation since we can't enhance the standard interface (ep rfq- clm rfp) for what we need. I just want to make sure that everything in the blog will be supported, like creating the interface to send up servce masters as well as material.

Thanks,

Katie

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Ed,

Myself & Katie work in same project and as she mentioned below we are using webservices to create Rfx in sourcing. We have requirement to change the group name to line item desc and I am setting line item desc value that's coming from ECC to "DISPLAY_GROUP" now it's asking to set value for "DISPLAY_GROUP_LIST". When I looked into API it's defined as Enumeration but that is not enabled, so I am not sure what to pass in "DISPLAY_GROUP_LIST".

Thanks,

Venu.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Venu,

I'm not a script developer so I'm not sure how much help I can be.

However, I did check the sample REST web service RFx line item script we provide in the online Reference Guide and found this reference to setting a Line Item Group Name:

If this doesn't help, hopefully an SCN colleague will assist you.  Otherwise you may need to create an SAP Support ticket.

Regards,

  Ed

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Ed,

Thank You for your response. The code that you provided is pulling the Rfx Line Item Group Name and setting that value to master agreement Line Item Group Name. Right now we are facing issues setting Line Item Group Name for Rfx. I created ticket to sap.

Thanks,

Venu.

[katie_doody2 · Accepted solution]

Hi Ed, I am working on the enhancements to BBP_ES_OA_UPDATE. I am finding that I am mapping the display group name and I see it coming from the ESO xml but it is not coming into the bapi. We are on sp 10 and we are still only getting the first group. Is there a note for this available?

[katie_doody2 · Accepted solution]

Hi Ed, I am working on the enhancements to BBP_ES_OA_UPDATE. I am finding that I am mapping the display group name and I see it coming in the ESO message but it is not coming into the function.

I also noticed that it is only passing the first line item on a republish. Like when you unlink the MA from the external ERP reference to the OLA and republish to ERP.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Katie,

The DISPLAY_GROUP_NAME is not automatically mapped.  For the customization you are doing, it should be mapped into the Short Text field of the item[] table of BBP_ES_OA_UPDATE with unique item_no.  If the Short text field is blank, ERP automatically adds text "Service Item",

Also, the service line item should be mapped to srv_line[] table of BBP_ES_OA_UPDATE with item_no = item_no of the outlline line item in item[] table with a unique EXTROW field.

Regarding the republish issue, all existing Agreement line items should be passed on a republish - the same behavior as the original publish.  I have not seen the behavior you describe.  Please create a Support ticket if you do not see all existing Agreement line items being passed on a republish.

Thanks,

  Ed

[katie_doody2 · Accepted solution]

Hi Ed, thanks for your reply. I changed the mapping but it still does not pass the field?

[katie_doody2 · Accepted solution]

Hi Ed, I had a thought after I posted this. I was using the standard enhancement provided and this was not working. I changed the standard message directly and now the value is passing. ??

[katie_doody2 · Accepted solution]

Hi Ed, just for clarification, it seems that the standard enhancement for pi fields does not work for sourcing. I extended the datatype and I can see the fields coming from ESO but the mapping is not working if they are extended. They do work if I directly modify the standard message but this is bad practice.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Katie,

   The mapping may not be working because the PI runtime is still using the standard mapping programs sitting in the cache.. Please have your PI expert do a cache refresh on PI and it should pick up the custom mapping....

Prasad

[katie_doody2 · Accepted solution]

It is picking up the mapping. I think the issue is that the extension adds ns0: prefix and sourcing can
't resolve. If I use the enhancement it does not work but if I modify the standard datatype for the header, it does work.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Not sure  I understand ..

<ns0:MT_Agreement xmlns:ns0="http://sap.com/xi/ESourcing/SRMJS/OP">

is part of the standard namespace.. this is the first line in the XML.. can you send me what you see ??

[katie_doody2 · Accepted solution]

Here are my custom fields passing from ESO:

My namespace looks just like yours. So the next screen shows both the best practice and enhancement and the direct enhancement of DT_Agreement_Header_Fields. If I use the best practice it does not work.

[katie_doody2 · Accepted solution]

Does that  make sense?

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Have you made sure your version of 'DT_Agreement_Header_Fields' is used in the message interfaces and mappings ?

I would recommend you to rename the DT_Agreement_Header_Fields to CUST_DT_Agreement_Header_Fields that way you will be sure that your customization is being picked up....

[katie_doody2 · Accepted solution]

I did. The problem is that sourcing does not recognize if I used the standard enhancement. I named it with a prefix of Z.

[katie_doody2 · Accepted solution]

Hi Venkateshwara, here is how I have extended the message

I can see the data coming from Sourcing

I can see that the bapi enhancements are coming to

The headerX fields are populated but the fields to not get populated through the mapping for header

What is interesting is that I remove the extension and directly add the fields to the standard datatype and change the mapping to go to that then everything works fine. Not sure what could be wrong?

[former_member190023 · Accepted solution]

Just a hint: as you are describing, this is most likely a namespace issue.

Namespace on XML element coming from sourcing has to match your enhancement definition namespace, otherwise the processor will consider it as a different element altogether.

Bogdan