Enterprise Resource Planning Blogs by Members
Gain new perspectives and knowledge about enterprise resource planning in blog posts from community members. Share your own comments and ERP insights today!
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Former Member
0 Kudos

Many users are not aware of this issue, although it's been around for some time:

Deriving a dependant cost item from a direct cost item in an earlier period doesn't work, if the cost object (e.g. employee) has changed its org unit since that period. Example: you have a business rule saying that the Xmas bonus paid in December equals x percent of the base salary plus overtime payments paid in September. This is easy to configure with standard configuration. No BAdI needed. However, If the employee has changed orgunit in October, this doesn't work. The bonus will be calculated as zero.

This is due to the fundamental design of the planning run, which is running per org unit rather than per employee / cost object. Therefore, you can't even deal with this issue using custom programming in the planning run BAdI.

We've been dealing with this by creating dummy cost items in the data collection BAdI, which are moved into the target period, where they can be used as calculation basis. When several cost items are affected, we also found it handy, to have these things configurable rather than all hard coded in the BAdI. No custom table needed - you can create a "dummy" planning context instead to hold the config for the dummy cost items. A quick and easy solution.

However: like everything done in data collection, it can't respond to any changes made in detail planning. So, in these cases a manual correction would still be necessary.

It would be interesting to know, who is aware of the problem, whom it is really bothering, and which solutions you may have found, particularly for detail planning. Please share your experience here.

A solution by SAP doesn't seem to be planned. The issue is merely documented in note 888780, but the suggested "solution" is to make corrections manually. This could affect large numbers of employees and it's also some effort to find out, who's affected. So, not an acceptable solution in my book. Maybe it would help, if more customers are aware of the issue and push SAP for a solution either directly or through their respective user groups.

This document was generated from the following discussion: The specified item was not found.

Labels in this area